Christopher Nolan Returns Kubrick Sci-Fi Masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' To Its Original Glory (latimes.com) 135
LA Times' Kenneth Turan traces Christopher Nolan's meticulous restoration of Kubrick's masterpiece to its 70-mm glory: Christopher Nolan wants to show me something interesting. Something beautiful and exceptional, something that changed his life when he was a boy. It's also something that Nolan, one of the most accomplished and successful of contemporary filmmakers, has persuaded Warner Bros. to share with the world both at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival and then in theaters nationwide, but in a way that boldly deviates from standard practice.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it was in Super Panavision 70, you could fangle SP70 to show on Cinerama projectors, but it wasn't filmed with a triple camera setup.
Re: (Score:3)
The original was in Cinerama.
They're not mutually exclusive: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says:
The less wide but still spectacular Super Panavision 70 was used to film the Cinerama presentations [...] 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which also featured scenes shot in Todd-AO and MCS-70 [...]
IMDb also lists the negative format as "65 mm (Eastman 50T 5251)" [imdb.com].
Since the film was shot and mastered in 70 mm, it seems reasonable enough to restore it to 70 mm. Unlike 3-screen Cinerama, there are actually still theaters that can project 70 mm analog.
I might give it a pass in my local 70 mm theater though... some years ago they replaced their screen, adding a silver coating to reflect more light for digital stereoscopic 3D projection, but ever since, analog
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that is was specifically shot to be seen in Cinerama (for younger readers, the Imax of its day), which gave it a jaw-dropping 3D effect. Seen on an ordinary (if widescreen) cinema screen - or worse, TV - it simply loses all its impact.
Nolan has a point (Score:3)
OK, I can see Nolan's point about the benefits of an analog process that captures light 1:1 by directly transferring it to a medium. But the rub is in the playback of that medium, because that always introduces flaws and errors in the recreation.
For example, I absolutely hated going to most movie theaters 10 years ago because I was sure to run into images out of focus, color lamps misaligned, scratches in the film, stutter in the playback, limitations in sound reproduction, etc. A digital projection system
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Why settle for less? This generation is all about 8k now! Get with the times n00b.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean to be honest you would need an 8k scan of a 70mm to perfectly capture everything. But even then according Nolan it doesn't matter how good the scan is...
you lose a tremendous amount of information I call emotional information.
*gag*. I'm not sure where on the color spectrum "emotional information" lives but apparently it can't be scanned or digitally projected.
Re: (Score:3)
*gag*. I'm not sure where on the color spectrum "emotional information" lives
Green which is probably why you gagged.
Re: (Score:2)
There is legitimate information lost when going digital - both in spatial information density (film doesn't have discrete pixels), and in color spectrum density (film doesn't introduce any quantization noise).
It's also quite possible the film covers a different color space than your display and/or video format, in which case it can capture many colors your screen is completely incapable of displaying, and that your video format is incapable of encoding. In fact RGB, regardless of quality, is physically inca
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
film doesn't have discrete pixels), and in color spectrum density (film doesn't introduce any quantization noise).
Film has grain, which has similar effects as discrete pixels, except that the grains are round and spread randomly.
three different band-pass filters selected to approximately match those of the average human eye
Not really. The band pass filters are selected to cover the visible spectrum in 3, more or less, equal parts. The receptors in a human eye are not spread out evenly. We have a blue cone on one side of the spectrum, and then two overlapping yellow-green/yellow-red cones on the other side. The "red" cones also have some sensitivity for extreme blue (that's why that appears as purple).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
There is noise in both electronic recording and analog recording. Film has grain [wikipedia.org] and mechanical uncertainly from the camera and the projector. This is due to physical positioning uncertainty when a frame is exposed or projected (or scanned). The perfs (square holes) that hold the film in place have tolerances and so do the mechanics of the film gate, which holds the film in place. No two sequential frames are in the exact same location.
Electronic image sensors have intrinsic noise as do electronic projectors. Both also have a quantized grid that limits the spacial resolution. Film also has grain characteristics that limit spacial resolution.
From a practical standpoint, current 4K camera and display technology are very similar to the best motion picture film standards. The electronic production process has no mechanical position variability like film and it is possible to track color from the camera source to the projector, so color reproduction can be better then film. The gamut of electronic projection is greater then any film stock, although film can record subtle shades that seem to be missing in electronic recording and projection.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh absolutely - my intended point was that analog does things differently, and thus has different *kinds* of information loss, even at the same overall quality (assuming some way to objectively measure such a thing) . There is therefore an valid, objective basis for claiming a qualitative difference in the watching experience, even if you don't understand the science behind it.
On to a technical discussion -
Could you refer me to some source on the RGB frequency distribution choice? Google is being uncooper
Re: (Score:2)
When the physical film is that old, making a decent looking copy is HARD. Making a good-looking 70mm print of the thing was a LOT of work.
Too Bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad the movie sucks. It's one of the most overrated movies of all time. It's slow, boring, and non-sensical.
It's a Kubric film, so if you turn up the volume you can hear him softly masturbating throughout each long, drawn out scene.
It's based on Clarke's work, so you may as well turn it off half way through and make up your own ending. You'll get a better result than Clarke, and you'll get it much sooner.
Oh, look! Here come the zealots to tell me how I'm too stupid to "get" it, how the scenes at the e
Re: (Score:1)
This.
I don't get the hype around that movie. I couldn't even sit through half of it.
Its provides a window into the past. (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, we are on the far side of history from this film. Much of the awe and wonder is passé, we've seen it so many times before. Many of the technological advances of the film have already been surpassed in this decade.
In addition, the artistic and ambiguous ending has already been brought closer to reality in other media, tales, and plotlines. It is more interesting now as a historical piece to give us insight into the limitations of the imaginations of previous generations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket?
Never?
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Just Stop (Score:1)
There is no right answer, but somehow, you've both managed to be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
^ Exactly.
I rewatch 2001 every 10 years. I almost always find some new interpretation or concept to think about. It is a very deep movie, but it doesn't hold your hand like most modern films do nor, like parent poster said, tell you what to think.
It's a complex allegory about the relationship of mankind to the tools we create, and it is probably more applicable to today's world than the 1960's world in which it was created. I'd put it in the top 5 movies of all time, of any genre, and any era.
I understan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a complex allegory
No it's not.
It's a boring, meandering story that doesn't make sense. The phrases "it's deep" and "you just don't get it" are always the first clue that something isn't very good.
Re: (Score:2)
Stick to capeshit and Star Wars.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
The universe which 2001 builds is a rather small one compared to the worlds most audiences are used to these days, and i
Re: (Score:2)
People don't seem to like movies that make you think, they want everything handed to them so they can sit there like a lump.
This reminds me of Cast Away which I thought was a decent go of making the audience think (by not really having much of a script). Then at the end they go and ruin it by continuing past the rescue scene, and have him go and explain everything for all the stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it one of the greatest movies ever made. It's one I often watch again. Except for the 20 min color montage toward the end, I fast forward through that.
How much do you skip from lesser films then? Let me guess, "Back To The Future was ok, except for the bit after the opening credits, I fast forward through that".
People don't seem to like movies that make you think
Films that make you think are commercially successful if they're good films. Films that bore you senseless make you think, "When is this tedious shit going to finish" and you fast forward through 20 minutes towards the end.
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I was _very_ glad that I'd already read the book. I was the only one, it appears, in the Monterey movie theater who had a clue as to what was going on, so many people from 2-3 rows and seats around kept asking me "What's going on now?"
Heh, only time I found myself useful during a movie.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, based upon Clarke's earlier work. But not based upon is book of the same name (which was developed in parallel and came out after the movie premiered).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Clarke and Kubrick worked together closely on this shit. It's nearly a joint project between them.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket?
To get that script you'll need the sufficiently advanced technology that can only be understood by taking acid while lobotomizing yourself while listening some Ligeti very loud, of course.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly would recommend Meditation and/or Fishing to help with your monkey mind [wikipedia.org] -- constantly jumping from thought to thought without taking a moment to analyze where the thought came from; unable to enjoy the moment for what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was an adaptation of the book. Clarke and Kubrick worked alongside each other on that shit.
The book was being written at the same time the film was being made. Ultimately Clarke was the one writing both. Kubrick's movie is based on Clarke's writing, and that writing was also the basis of the book which released after the movie, I believe. Clarke continued the series (and it's all awful), Kubrick did not.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the movie sucks. It's one of the most overrated movies of all time. It's slow, boring, and non-sensical.
I enjoy the film, but agree that these are totally valid critiques. A lot is open to interpretation, the ending especially so.
In defense of the slow and boring. That's how space travel would be. Clarke and Kubrick were striving to be realistic. This movie is a stark contrast to the shoot-em-up action of most science fiction movies. However, mixing that realism with its heavy metaphors was a confusing choice.
Although I think it's still incredible to this day, it should also be noted this was 1968. 2001 was revolutionary in its day. Not as much now. (I give the Beatles the same handicap. I don't think most of their music stands the test of time, but it was revolutionary in its day. Go ahead, flame me)
Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket? I like what I saw, but the projectionist swapped in a different film halfway through. Strangely, this mistake has been repeated on every video/DVD/etc. release I've seen so far. If you need some help finishing, maybe give John Kricfalusi a call, he's known for timely work!
Oh, yeah. There are is a major continuity issue with Full Metal Jacket. It feels like two separate movies, with the first being more enjoyable. I argue that it was likely done on purpose, to mark the contrast between training and actual war.
Kubrick was the kind of director that was in it for the art, like it or not. A lot of directors crank out film after film to keep a steady paycheck. He was slow and methodical, until it was the way he wanted it. (although he did edit 2001 after the first screening due to complaints similar to yours)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I think it's still incredible to this day, it should also be noted this was 1968. 2001 was revolutionary in its day. Not as much now. (I give the Beatles the same handicap. I don't think most of their music stands the test of time, but it was revolutionary in its day. Go ahead, flame me)
Same here. There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling. The pace was low, but it's supposed to be. And I agree with the Beatles comment too. Musically they weren't brilliant, but for their time the songwriting was phenomenal, and luckily expert musicianship wasn't really a thing until the 70's.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling.
Look, I can understand you not liking Laurence of Arabia, Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, Zulu, Belle de Jour, Bonnie and Clyde, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", Planet of the Apes, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Italian Job and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
However every single one of them tells a story far better than 2001, and several of them are far better cinema too.
Re: (Score:1)
There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling.
Look, I can understand you not liking Laurence of Arabia, Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, Zulu, Belle de Jour, Bonnie and Clyde, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", Planet of the Apes, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Italian Job and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
However every single one of them tells a story far better than 2001, and several of them are far better cinema too.
Sorry I meant Sci-fi storytelling. You are right, I've seen most of those movies and they are great, but anything sci-fi of that era was mostly spaghetti.
Re: (Score:1)
Das Boot succeeded in the same format to convey tedium alongside terror: use a very long edit.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Lawrence of Arabia just fine. I mean, it's got an actual story for one, and it looks amazing. When you strip away all the film snob bullshit it stands head and shoulders above the crap that is 2001.
I can't tell you the last time I sat and watched it, and I don't know that I ever will again, but it's got my approval.
As for Tropic Thunder, that movie has the opposite problem. The first half is total suck. The phony previews at the very beginning are good, but they should've cut off 20-30 minutes fr
At least watch 2010: The year we make contact (Score:2)
I am sort of middle-ground. I do think the movie is overrated and it is one of my least favourite Kubrick movies (my favourite are Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Clockwork Orange - probably in that order), but I can appreciate how it is ground-braking and visually (and audibly) stunning - especially in its day, but remarkably holding up. If it were not for 2 needlessly long sequences: the start with the apes, and the approaching the monolith psychedelia, as well as a much more cryptic than required and tiri
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look! Here come the zealots to tell me
We're not telling you anything. We'll just quote you without context:
I'm too stupid to "get" it
Re: (Score:3)
People tend to rate sex highly, until they try heroine.
Sapolsky's book from last year, Behave, has a lot of material on how our dopaminic system rescales itself to available stimulus. The book is 800 pages long, and every page so far is dense with neuroanatomy. Unbelievably good, but I'm guessing it's not sexconker's preferred Flaming Doctor Pepper [wikipedia.org] bomb shot.
For the record, the first time I read Lord of the Rings (a
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest that you stay where your are in your parent's basement until he finishes the Fill Metal Jacket sequel. (Kubrick died in 1999.)
Re: (Score:1)
Timeless film (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure it's that 'timeless'. So much stuff done in the 60s and 70s suffers from a design aesthetic which is ... well, ugly, because it was so period specific.
I've watched 2001 several times, and while I think it's a good film, I'm not sure I'd say it's the most compelling sci-fi film ever made.
Parts of it just drag on, and while it's probably the most faithful realism for space flight, it still makes for some very long scenes of "OK, nothing is really happening here" ... followed by sudden loud noise
Re:Timeless film (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, with the current Avengers nipping on the heels of generating a billion dollars in just over a week ... you pretty much have to recognise that it's clearly what people want.
Absolutely that tripe is what people want. Along with Big Macs and another report on Kendall Jenner's choice of latte on Tuesdays. Mass-market crap is just that. I will say this though, in 50 years nobody is going to talk about Infinity Blade or Kendall Jenner (jury's out on Big Macs) as they discuss the 100th anniversary of this film.
Re:Timeless film (Score:4, Interesting)
So, feel free to sit around with your pipe and smoking jacket doing the kinds of things one does when wearing a smoking jacket ... and discuss in detail how HAL is a metaphor for human suffering an inequity and that the docking scene is representational of intercourse ... me, I'll take a good Avengers film any day.
I don't try reading between the lines (seeing between the frames?) on the movie. Meh. What I like about the movie is its a visual spectacle that makes one think. It is a movie that makes limitations work. A good example is the monolith. Supposed to be alien probe. Bowman supposed to be at alien planet/place at the end. And there was lots of talk about what the aliens should be like, look like, and so forth. It was none other than Carl Sagan's idea to avoid presenting the aliens or their tech in anything but the most generalized abstraction. Throw the superhero crew on that problem today, and you'd end up with zillion-polygon slime critter rendered through super-dark blue alpha filter in post production that would look laughably fake in two years.
Another thing is the destination planet. They picked Jupiter instead of Saturn (like in the book) because Saturn was a fuzzy blob with rings back then, and nothing else. There had never been a close-up photo of Jupiter even when 2001 was made. Nobody had ever seen the Jovian moons or even had good idea on what color they were. And yet there's never been a better depiction and sense of being in deep space around Jupiter than that film. No way around it, that is impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Mindless crap isn't genre-specific, it is something that affects and maligns every genre. Look at supposedly low-brow plebeian popcorn culture. Like Star Wars. There is good (Episode V) and there is mindless crap (Episode I). Same with Trek (Episode 1 vis Episode IV). Old School isn't anything classy, but man is it funny. Deadpool is a modern example of good superhero movie. Richard Donner Supermans are classics. So is very first Burton Batman, or the Nolan reboots. They're out there. Not judging by genre h
Re: (Score:2)
Call me back when somebody makes one.
DrabadabaTISH!
Umm, 'idiocracy'? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people will find it slow and boring, but you have to remember when it came out.
There was no Internet, computers, handheld phones, no connection to anyone in the world.
I was a kid when I saw it, in re-runs and it was something that has stuck with me all my life, along with Blade Runner and Laurence of Arabia.
They are all really Epic movies with Epic depth.
To me it's about the AI, the silence and the long parts that let you think and feel the movie.
Maybe when your a kid and watch it and yo
Re: Timeless film (Score:1)
There was no Internet, computers, handheld phones, no connection to anyone in the world.
In 1968 if you wanted a phone in a particular room, as opposed to the main phone usually a wall phone in the kitchen, you had to make an appointment to have somebody from the phone company come to your house and install an 'extension' phone. Phones were connected to the network with screw terminals under a screwed down cover. From the user's point of view, they were permanently attached to the wall.
For 99% of everyone, nobody really knew anybody, ever, in person, who had appeared on television. It was a big
Re: (Score:2)
In 1968 if you wanted a phone in a particular room, as opposed to the main phone usually a wall phone in the kitchen, you had to make an appointment to have somebody from the phone company come to your house and install an 'extension' phone.
The house I lived in was built in 1960. It had telephone wiring installed in every room of the house, including the bathrooms, by my father, who did not work for the telephone company. When we wanted to string a line to the barn we went to Radio Shack to buy a spool of wire and an outlet (the old four-pin kind) and did it ourselves. The demarc was on the pole about 20 feet from the house, and we took care of everything on our side of it.
There was one person who worked for "the phone company" in town. We kn
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people will find it slow and boring, but you have to remember when it came out.
I just finished watching one of those "top 100 movies ever made" list. More than half of those movies were older than "2001", but it was surely the slowest of them all.
Full comprehension (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw this when it first came out, as an adult and fan of SciFi. I came away secure in the knowledge that I understood the point of the movie every bit as completely as Kubrick - which was not at all. Nice visuals for the time. A plot would have been a nice touch.
There is a plot: Also Sprach Zarathustra (Score:2)
The opening music isn't an accident.
for what Wikipedia's worth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra): " More specifically, this note related to the concept of the eternal recurrence, which is, by Nietzsche's admission, the central idea of Zarathustra; this idea occurred to him by a **"pyramidal block of stone"** on the shores of Lake Silvaplana in the Upper Engadine, "
"Another singular feature of Zarathustra
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In particular the HAL aboard the Discovery One was told a secret about the true nature of the mission (to find what the first monolith transmitted to) which wasn't revealed to its counterpart on Earth or most of the crew. Reasoning that humans were fallible and their presence was more likely to compromise the mission and more risky than retaining them, HAL attempted to eliminate them.
HAL didn
First time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First time (Score:1)
I remember the first time I saw the movie 2001. It was in a theatre in Green Bay, Wisconsin in 1968.
Most Prophetic Line in the Movie (Score:1)
But during the video phone call to his daughter (played by Kubrick's daughter), Heywood Floyd asks her what she wants for her birthday.
Her reply: "A Bush Baby"
Which is exactly what the US got for a president in 2001. I shit you not.
How about a different Nolan/Clarke project? (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved the camera work and cuts in Interstellar. Same with the soundtrack.
What would it take to convince Chris Nolan to take on Clarke's Rama books and transfer to the big screen?
Can you imagine seeing the inside of the Rama spacecraft on an IMAX screen?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you imagine seeing the inside of the Rama spacecraft on an IMAX screen?
You don't have to imagine, Elysium already ripped this concept off...
Re:Rotten Tomatoes: 10% (Score:5, Funny)
It looks much better on vinyl.
Re: (Score:1)
It looks much better on vinyl.
It's really obscure, you've probably never heard/seen it before...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're not watching it on a 1936 343-line 9" RCA RR-359 receiver then you're not seeing it the way Kubrick originally intended.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking along the lines of how some music was mixed to sound good on over AM on a cheap transistor radio (where "good" == "almost acceptable if you're stoned") but you've hit the nail on the head far better than I could. Bravo.
P.S. That thing's huge. Is the bottom half where you store the coal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the short length version. It was developed concurrently with the novel. They actually ended up filming two hundred times as much footage as was in the final movie.
https://inktank.fi/17-little-k... [inktank.fi]
"Many theater owners had observed increasing numbers of young adults attending the film, who were especially enthusiastic about watching the ‘Star Gate’ sequence under the influence of psychotropic drugs. "
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the very very first time I saw it (no brownies as yet), I was the only person in the theatre who had read the book already. I remember narrating (as best I could) "what the fuck is going on?" for the people around me.