2001: A Space Odyssey re-issue 2018

[St_Eddie]

I still haven't got around to watching 2010: The Year We Made Contact.  I think that a double bill is in order.

[amputeeporn]

So many fantastic posts above, including yours Attila and buzby.,which I will respond to when Im settled, busy right now. But I'd just like to point out something for us London verbwhores:

https://princecharlescinema.com/PrinceCharlesCinema.dll/WhatsOn?s=409

My 3rd screening of the summer? Why not?

This is very exciting to me - as I've never seen it and the thread has enticed me so much I'\ve just bought the BluRay. That said, if my first experience could be a cinema I think I'd prefer it.

Re: Prince Charles, having never been, where would be best to sit? The screen looks quite small in the pictures I've seen - so I'm assuming I should avoid my usual inclination towards the back of the theatre?

Thanks for posting - really thought I'd missed all the new screenings.

[Howj Begg]

This is very exciting to me - as I've never seen it and the thread has enticed me so much I'\ve just bought the BluRay. That said, if my first experience could be a cinema I think I'd prefer it.

Re: Prince Charles, having never been, where would be best to sit? The screen looks quite small in the pictures I've seen - so I'm assuming I should avoid my usual inclination towards the back of the theatre?

Thanks for posting - really thought I'd missed all the new screenings.

I've not been to the Prince Charles before! But I'm booking for squarely in the middle.

I'm sure the Blue ray is great, and on a big telly it will be magic. But yeah the big screen, of this print above all, is.. well it has been a religious experience for me. I can't recommend it enough.

[Wet Blanket]

I've not been to the Prince Charles before! But I'm booking for squarely in the middle.

I'm sure the Blue ray is great, and on a big telly it will be magic. But yeah the big screen, of this print above all, is.. well it has been a religious experience for me. I can't recommend it enough.

For some reason the seats in the PCC dip towards the centre and bank upwards, so if you're sitting in the middle of the auditorium the person in front of you will be a little higher up than you, which if they're really tall or wearing a top-hat could be an issue, and it's quite a hipstery place too so that might be the case.

[mothman]

The whole new cut, this "watch it like it was in 1968" derestoration IS hipsterish. It's 2001: A Space Odyssey - The Hipster Cut. I don't need to relive what it was like to first watch it in 1968, because I did see it then. Or rather in 1978 which is to all intents & purposes the same thing...

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

The explanation is also very similar to the ending of A.I. Foreign civilization (in A.I.'s case, robots that have cut ties over time with humanity) put a sample in a supposed recreation of his old environment and watch him react. There are other allusions to 2001 in A.I. which were already present in the drawings that Kubrick for the epilogue, which were commissioned before he gave the project to Spielberg and died. Both films actually question the nature of humanity. 2001 is about humans facing the threat of a malfunctioning machine they rely on, A.I. is about a machine threatened by humans.

[Howj Begg]

The whole new cut, this "watch it like it was in 1968" derestoration IS hipsterish. It's 2001: A Space Odyssey - The Hipster Cut. I don't need to relive what it was like to first watch it in 1968, because I did see it then. Or rather in 1978 which is to all intents & purposes the same thing...

You did see it in 1968? Or is that a typo?

Anyway, I don't think anyone can really give an opinion about this print until they've seen it, but I'm not trying to convince anyone.

[Wet Blanket]

It has amused me a little bit to see people waxing lyrical about visible scratches, the cigarette burns and muffled sound - all things that used to get on my tits in the days before digital projections - as marks of authenticity.

[mothman]

You did see it in 1968? Or is that a typo?

Anyway, I don't think anyone can really give an opinion about this print until they've seen it, but I'm not trying to convince anyone.

The same print shown in 1968 was shown in 1978, I was creating an equivalency.

If I get the chance I'll def go and see it; just saying it all sounds a bit, well, odd.

It has amused me a little bit to see people waxing lyrical about visible scratches, the cigarette burns and muffled sound - all things that used to get on my tits in the days before digital projections - as marks of authenticity.

Exactly.

[buzby]

It has amused me a little bit to see people waxing lyrical about visible scratches, the cigarette burns and muffled sound - all things that used to get on my tits in the days before digital projections - as marks of authenticity.

They are byproducts of the process used to produce it. Having seen the 2k digital scan on the same screen last year it was a worthwhile comparison, and the thing that stood out to me on the new print was the wider colour palette and increase in visible detail.

The most obvious comparison would be listening to a modern CD remaster of a classic album compared to an original vinyl release cut by someone like George 'Porky' Peckham. The CD will be clinically clean and accurate (provided it hasn't been brickwalled in the remastering process), but the LP will have more warmth and dynamic range, and it's worth putting up with some pops and crackles for that.

[Wet Blanket]

It's funny because I am a complete vinyl apologist but I think digital projection has massively improved the general cinema-going experience. Movies recorded on film cameras certainly look much warmer, I agree,  but in terms of projection I much prefer the brighter, crisper, digital variety.

I've got no time for old prints whatsoever. I felt ripped off when a BFI print of Rear Window was in such bad nick that Grace Kelly was jumping across the screen on account of missing frames and the picture was covered in dirt and scratches. Likewise, to me, paying for those knackered, pink-hued prints from the 80s the Prince Charles sometimes screens is ridiculous.

[Astronaut Omens]

Another interesting note in the earlier iterations of the script is he inference that Frank and Dave were expendable and may not be returning on the Discovery. During Frank's message from his parents they mention about trying to get his pay increment sorted out. In he early drafts Frank and Dave have a conversation about how they both got the paperwork saying they were getting mission payments prior to launch but the payments aren't being made, and the payroll office wouldn't answer any questions about it when Frank asked them why.

This was such a good point it made me wonder if there is anything equally subtle going on in Floyd's conversation with his daughter. Is there supposed to be something odd going on that
babysitter never comes back? There's a contrast between the ape-children, who are being cared for by the adult apes throughout the opening bit, and the one human child being completely alone. The star-child at the end is alone too.

Right now my 3am mind is telling me that the perfectly geometric monolith is a symbol not for an external force but for abstract rationality. Abstract rationality allows humans to develop mastery over their surroundings, and ultimately allows them to access transcendent, eternal truths but it necessarily isolates them from the pleasures of being in a  pack-of-apes community.

[phantom_power]

I started watching this the other day but fell asleep just after the Dawn of Man sequence. It is no sign of quality of the film, I was just really tired. It did make me think though how much of a headfuck it must have been for people seeing it on release. This science fiction film that starts with a 15 minute sequence set in the prehistoric age and then jumping straight to the future with no dialogue for a long time. With no clue as to what to expect it must have been confusing and/or amazing to see.

[St_Eddie]

I started watching this the other day but fell asleep just after the Dawn of Man sequence...

The Yawn of Man.

[Mr_Simnock]

It did make me think though how much of a headfuck it must have been for people seeing it on release. This science fiction film that starts with a 15 minute sequence set in the prehistoric age and then jumping straight to the future with no dialogue for a long time.

This reminds me of that lunatic on youtube who reviews films and doesn't class 2001 as a film as there is no talking in most of it, the review of this film is soo funny, anyone have a link? I can't currently find it.

[Bhazor]

I'd like to see 2001 on the big screen but only if I could listen to an audiobook while staring at it.

[Replies From View]

This reminds me of that lunatic on youtube who reviews films and doesn't class 2001 as a film as there is no talking in most of it, the review of this film is soo funny, anyone have a link? I can't currently find it.

Do you mean Confused Matthew?  I was bashing my head against my monitor watching his review of 2001 a few years back.  If I recall he preferred 2010 because it had a straightforward narrative.

[Blumf]

I'd like to see 2001 on the big screen but only if I could listen to an audiobook while staring at it.

This can be arranged, but the only audiobook available is Jeffery Archer's Sons of Fortune

[Sebastian Cobb]

It's funny because I am a complete vinyl apologist but I think digital projection has massively improved the general cinema-going experience. Movies recorded on film cameras certainly look much warmer, I agree,  but in terms of projection I much prefer the brighter, crisper, digital variety.

I've got no time for old prints whatsoever. I felt ripped off when a BFI print of Rear Window was in such bad nick that Grace Kelly was jumping across the screen on account of missing frames and the picture was covered in dirt and scratches. Likewise, to me, paying for those knackered, pink-hued prints from the 80s the Prince Charles sometimes screens is ridiculous.

But this is a new 70mm print, so it should be in good nick. It fucking better be anyway.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything on 70mm, I'm quite intrigued to see it.

I can't really remember seeing knackered prints before digital took over. I assumed the reason some look a bit fucked is because they're kept in circulation much longer (punted between the few places that will still screen a 35mm film) and the projectors that show them are not serviced and after over as they were when they were being used daily, so they fuck them up.

[Chriddof]

Do you mean Confused Matthew?  I was bashing my head against my monitor watching his review of 2001 a few years back.  If I recall he preferred 2010 because it had a straightforward narrative.

I think Stan Brakhage would have had something to say about his idea of what constitutes a movie.

[buzby]

But this is a new 70mm print, so it should be in good nick. It fucking better be anyway.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything on 70mm, I'm quite intrigued to see it.

I can't really remember seeing knackered prints before digital took over. I assumed the reason some look a bit fucked is because they're kept in circulation much longer (punted between the few places that will still screen a 35mm film) and the projectors that show them are not serviced and after over as they were when they were being used daily, so they fuck them up.

It's a new print, taken from a new internegative struck from an interpositive taken from the original 65mm negative, so what you are seeing is basically a 3rd-generation image. The interpositive was produced in 1999 at the behest of Warners and Kubrick as a protection print to insure against further degradation of the original negatives (which had been heavily damaged over the years from the print-striking process). Some restoration and cleaning work was performed on the negatives at that time, but what you are seeing is basically what the negatives looked like in 1999.

There is some colour fade (though if it's stored properly negative stock does not fade anywhere near as quickly or badly as print stock), dirt and some damage that if you were doing a digital restoration you would be able to mostly eliminate, but it's far better than any of the old prints that still exist (which will have faded and worn from being run through projectors) or the 2K scan DCP that Warners have been circulating in recent times.

The thing to remember about distribution prints is they were only intended to last as long as a theatrical run - print stocks are not colour stable and prone to fade. Eastmancolor print film (introduced in the early 1950s) in particular loses it's blue and green layers quicker, so the image shifts to red, and as you say the projection process gradually wears the film substrate out (and can result in scratches and tears). If the run was extended, they could always run off more prints.

The Technicolor process that existed before that split the image into RGB channels in the camera and recorded them on 3 strips of black and white film. Prints were then produced by making dyed gel copies of the 3 black and white strips and contact printing them onto a clear film. The dyes used in the contact printing process are far more colour stable than the emulsions used in the Eastmancolor process, and the prints are consequently less prone to fading. This process was slower and more expensive than Eastman's, which effectively killed it off. However, it was not uncommon for studios and directors to have Technicolor protection prints made of films shot on Eastmancolor for archival purposes, at least until the Technicolor labs were closed down. Star Wars is an example of this, where a handful of 35mm Technicolor prints were made by Technicolor's London lab just prior to it's closure in 1978. One print was owned by Lucas and was used as a colour timing reference for the 1997 'restoration', and another exists in private hands.

[phantom_power]

I finally finished watching this and I stand by the comment I made that this is a film to be admired more than enjoyed. It is gorgeous to look at and the design and future-scaping is amazing but so little actually happens in the film. You can literally sum up the entire plot in a couple of sentences. That isn't a criticism per se, but it isn't really my cup of tea.

I also watched 2010, which is an odd beast. Nothing like the first film, and it looks even older for some reason. In many ways a more traditional film but still full of head-fuck things like Bowman appearing in the TV, and him appearing to Floyd at various different ages and being annoyingly oblique in his warning

It did make me realise that only about a third of the film 2001 happens in the year 2001.

[greenman]

Not enough reeds either...

[Howj Begg]

Not enough reeds either...

Solaris is equally as good, but Andrei borrowed more from 2001 than he cared to admit:







Not to mention the car journey in the first half hour, clearly inspired by the stargate sequence...

[greenman]

You could argue I spose if the film as a whole is a response to 2001 with a more human tone to it then it makes sense to rework the stargate sequence but with city traffic.

Although really I think you could argue in terms of long term ascetic influence it came out ontop with Starwars, Alien, etc clibbing its worn and cluttered designs over Kubricks slick modernism.