Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:48:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

2001: A Space Odyssey re-issue 2018

Started by surreal, May 30, 2018, 05:34:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sebastian Cobb

Taking the weans to see 2001 is some proper Modern Parents shit. Bet they gave them some kale crisps instead of popcorn or something.

mothman

I was 8 when I saw it, and it was challenging, but I loved space films, so sat through it though it freaked me out - long after had nightmares about the Star Child. A half-memory suggests my little brother, who'd've been four then, came too; I can't remember how he took it if he did. There may have been an intermission? It was my dad and my uncle took us.

But, I can't imagine my 8yo daughter sitting through it; nor her 13yo big sister either...

Sebastian Cobb

I remember once when I was at uni a pal said they wanted to see it and I said that they 'probably wouldn't like it' and they took it to mean 'probably wouldn't understand it' which is sort of true but I don't really understand it either, this is the same person who once said 'if there's not an explosion in the next five minutes I'm fucking this off!'. I think we did end up watching it a few years later (after pulling some stops out at work I was awarded some vouchers and used them to cover a big telly and a bluray player and one of the first things I bought was 2001 to test it all out) and at the ending he just asked incredulously what was that?

Howj Begg

A revelatory experience for me tonight, whatever the print. It brought it all into focus for me: this is the greatest horror film ever made, and yet that's the least way to describe it. It's a multimedia installation, with separable dimensions that function of themselves, one example being the the musical narrative , which is essentially a programmed concert, with Ligeti both before the film and after the Intermission, and then finally the full 'Blue Danube' from the credits onwards, lasting many minutes after they are finished. All of this extends the "film's" length by a good what 15-20 minutes? How this interacts with the images and the plot,is something that surely differs from person to person: is the Ligeti during the wormhole journey to Jupiter malevolent, or promising, or terrifying? Or all three? Is the Khachaturian Gayane adagio during Bowman's training and Poole's tv watching sad, sinister, or humanising? All I know is that piece makes a big difference to the atmopshere (no pun) of the film; it conveys a kind of humane warmth that eloquently speaks some of the feelings the humans never exhibit.

I can't really process what I've seen tonight. it really is a dramatically different experience on the cinema. It makes me realise what a thread everything is hanging on... literally in terms of the effects, yet how expertly the visual language is delivered to you, with careful or fortuitous lighting (the monolith lit by the sun, Bowman's face obscured and illuminated by console lights of green and yellow, joining the red of his suit.) Tonight I was able to appreciate the solar ballet scored by Ligeti's Requiem where the planets line up with the sun and the monolith. We see that from a number of different hair raising angles at different points in the solar system, and it's possibly for me the most astonishing sequence of the film. I don't know what it means. The last moments blew my mind when I first saw them as an 8 year old, and tonight I had tears in my eyes. This film is utterly forbidding, confident, unforgiving art. It's a miracle that it exists.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Howj Begg on June 04, 2018, 01:18:18 AM
A revelatory experience for me tonight, whatever the print. It brought it all into focus for me: this is the greatest horror film ever made, and yet that's the least way to describe it. It's a multimedia installation, with separable dimensions that function of themselves, one example being the the musical narrative , which is essentially a programmed concert, with Ligeti both before the film and after the Intermission, and then finally the full 'Blue Danube' from the credits onwards, lasting many minutes after they are finished. All of this extends the "film's" length by a good what 15-20 minutes? How this interacts with the images and the plot,is something that surely differs from person to person: is the Ligeti during the wormhole journey to Jupiter malevolent, or promising, or terrifying? Or all three? Is the Khachaturian Gayane adagio during Bowman's training and Poole's tv watching sad, sinister, or humanising? All I know is that piece makes a big difference to the atmopshere (no pun) of the film; it conveys a kind of humane warmth that eloquently speaks some of the feelings the humans never exhibit.

I can't really process what I've seen tonight. it really is a dramatically different experience on the cinema. It makes me realise what a thread everything is hanging on... literally in terms of the effects, yet how expertly the visual language is delivered to you, with careful or fortuitous lighting (the monolith lit by the sun, Bowman's face obscured and illuminated by console lights of green and yellow, joining the red of his suit.) Tonight I was able to appreciate the solar ballet scored by Ligeti's Requiem where the planets line up with the sun and the monolith. We see that from a number of different hair raising angles at different points in the solar system, and it's possibly for me the most astonishing sequence of the film. I don't know what it means. The last moments blew my mind when I first saw them as an 8 year old, and tonight I had tears in my eyes. This film is utterly forbidding, confident, unforgiving art. It's a miracle that it exists.

I'm truly hopeful that one day I'll be able to experience 2001: A Space Odyssey like this.  None of my prior viewings have left much of an impact on me but I really feel as though that's more a case of myself, having not quite been in the correct frame of mind, previously.  One day, it'll click, I'm sure of it.

Ant Farm Keyboard

The screening you get reconstitutes the Roadshow presentation that was quite common with 70mm screenings. At my Paris screening, there was no 15 minute intermission, just a title about the intermission, with the music playing over it, then the film resumes, just as it is with the Blu-ray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_theatrical_release

Kubrick used for the final score temp tracks that helped him edit the stuff. Some composers were supposed to work on an actual score, Alex North actually wrote a full score (using a few elements from the temp tracks, less blatantly actually than Bill Conti had to recycle elements from The Planets and some other works for The Right Stuff), but Kubrick truly wanted to use these classical music pieces, and the studio ultimately let him do this, after some infighting.

Wet Blanket

I was pleasantly surprised that it featured the overture and a full intermission. According to this feller on Twitter, the prints come with instructions about when to dim the lights, how to frame the picture etc.

My local Vue had obviously followed most of these instructions, although the picture had dead screen above and below as well as left and right, which might have been the best way to fit it on to the screen but was a little distracting at first. 

I was inclined to give the parents who'd brought three little kids the benefit of the doubt because as above, lots of people seem to have seen it at a young age and been wowed. To be fair to its young critic, he seemed dismayed about the enigmatic plot rather than its effectiveness as a film (which many older, wiser critics also complain about)

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Wet Blanket on June 04, 2018, 08:26:02 AM
My local Vue had obviously followed most of these instructions, although the picture had dead screen above and below as well as left and right, which might have been the best way to fit it on to the screen

Was it in one of their small/medium sized screens?  If so, that's exactly what happened with the Close Encounters 4K restoration - they squashed it down artificially to fit the smaller sized screen rather than do what they should have done and put it on one of the large (or, even better, superscreen) screens.  Completely ruined the film, and the main reason I didn't bother seeing 2001, despite it being one of my favourites.

Wet Blanket

No it was on a massive screen. Overall it looked incredible. A real feeling of weightlessness in the scene where he replaces the whatchacallit.

From that twitter pic it seems the distributors recommend it's shown that way - presumably modern screens are slightly different shape to the widescreen ones of yore. I don't know the terminology but usually you get the opposite problem with Kubrick films in which they've cut off the top and bottom to fill the screen, rather than leaving bars at either side. (I suspect that it's something that used to be disguised by the adjustable curtains that cinemas don't have anymore)

colacentral

Quote from: Howj Begg on June 04, 2018, 01:18:18 AM
A revelatory experience for me tonight, whatever the print. It brought it all into focus for me: this is the greatest horror film ever made, and yet that's the least way to describe it. It's a multimedia installation, with separable dimensions that function of themselves, one example being the the musical narrative , which is essentially a programmed concert, with Ligeti both before the film and after the Intermission, and then finally the full 'Blue Danube' from the credits onwards, lasting many minutes after they are finished. All of this extends the "film's" length by a good what 15-20 minutes? How this interacts with the images and the plot,is something that surely differs from person to person: is the Ligeti during the wormhole journey to Jupiter malevolent, or promising, or terrifying? Or all three? Is the Khachaturian Gayane adagio during Bowman's training and Poole's tv watching sad, sinister, or humanising? All I know is that piece makes a big difference to the atmopshere (no pun) of the film; it conveys a kind of humane warmth that eloquently speaks some of the feelings the humans never exhibit.

I can't really process what I've seen tonight. it really is a dramatically different experience on the cinema. It makes me realise what a thread everything is hanging on... literally in terms of the effects, yet how expertly the visual language is delivered to you, with careful or fortuitous lighting (the monolith lit by the sun, Bowman's face obscured and illuminated by console lights of green and yellow, joining the red of his suit.) Tonight I was able to appreciate the solar ballet scored by Ligeti's Requiem where the planets line up with the sun and the monolith. We see that from a number of different hair raising angles at different points in the solar system, and it's possibly for me the most astonishing sequence of the film. I don't know what it means. The last moments blew my mind when I first saw them as an 8 year old, and tonight I had tears in my eyes. This film is utterly forbidding, confident, unforgiving art. It's a miracle that it exists.

Having seen it a million times, I thought I was burned out on 2001 and wasn't sure whether I could be arsed with the screening yesterday, especially as I've seen a few other films at cinema re-repeases after getting familiar with them at home, and finding that the screen and sound didn't add as much as I'd hoped. But like you, I found alot of small elements in the visuals and audio really sprung out on a big screen with big cinema speakers when I went to see this yesterday.

The best example for me would be the moon sequence: not only does the over-the-shoulder cinematography as the landing team descends the ramp make it feel like the monolith is right there in front of you, giving you a great sense of its size, weight, and feel, but the piercing noise that rings out soon after is actually painful - and there's nothing you can do about the volume but sit there and take it.

In that sense, I get what you mean about having a revelation that it's a horror film. Of course, you can gather from watching it at home that each sequence has sinister elements, and that the HAL scenes in particular could have been a whole horror film by themselves. But you're right - the cinema experience amps those things up, and produces a much more chilling experience than any memory I have of watching it at home.

Another good example would be the "COMPUTER MALFUNCTION" scene where HAL kills the hibernating scientists. At home, I got it - it's an extreme close-up of the computer consoles, it's giving you this information without dialogue, it's a cool way of doing it. But in the cinema, that red monitor taking up the entire screen with another unbearably loud beeping sound, for what feels like a really long time, feels much different - more uncomfortable, more oppressive. At home it's always just been an interesting segue into the confrontation with Dave; in the cinema it was one of the most memorable and powerful scenes of the whole film.

The sinister elements feeling ramped up subtly changes the ending for me. Where I initially viewed the dawn of man sequence as simply the monolith teaching the apes to think, which gives them the thought to use weapons, and that each subsequent monolith encounter is intended to push man on intellectually, I now think about what the monolith did to those other apes: they were beaten and killed. HAL is visually similar to the monolith and fights with the human crew for dominance as he becomes sentient, killing most of them along the way (a crew who were put there by the crew who found the one on the moon). Dave wins and gets to be the person who finds the monolith at Jupiter. What I once perceived as a positive ending, perhaps because of the innocence and purity attached to images of babies, I now find a bit ominous: what is this new human going to do with the unenlightened section of humanity? Was it foreshadowed by what the apes and HAL did with their knowledge?

colacentral

Quote from: Wet Blanket on June 04, 2018, 08:26:02 AM
I was pleasantly surprised that it featured the overture and a full intermission. According to this feller on Twitter, the prints come with instructions about when to dim the lights, how to frame the picture etc.

My local Vue had obviously followed most of these instructions, although the picture had dead screen above and below as well as left and right, which might have been the best way to fit it on to the screen but was a little distracting at first. 

I was inclined to give the parents who'd brought three little kids the benefit of the doubt because as above, lots of people seem to have seen it at a young age and been wowed. To be fair to its young critic, he seemed dismayed about the enigmatic plot rather than its effectiveness as a film (which many older, wiser critics also complain about)

To my shame, thought I knew the beginning was the overture, I'm so used to chains like Vue, Cineworld etc fucking things up that I assumed they'd turned the lights on by accident, especially as they'd been off during all the trailers. I was fuming. Felt a bit embarrassed when they turned back off dead-on the appearance of the MGM logo.

saltysnacks

Quote from: Howj Begg on June 04, 2018, 01:18:18 AM
A revelatory experience for me tonight, whatever the print. It brought it all into focus for me: this is the greatest horror film ever made, and yet that's the least way to describe it. It's a multimedia installation, with separable dimensions that function of themselves, one example being the the musical narrative , which is essentially a programmed concert, with Ligeti both before the film and after the Intermission, and then finally the full 'Blue Danube' from the credits onwards, lasting many minutes after they are finished. All of this extends the "film's" length by a good what 15-20 minutes? How this interacts with the images and the plot,is something that surely differs from person to person: is the Ligeti during the wormhole journey to Jupiter malevolent, or promising, or terrifying? Or all three? Is the Khachaturian Gayane adagio during Bowman's training and Poole's tv watching sad, sinister, or humanising? All I know is that piece makes a big difference to the atmopshere (no pun) of the film; it conveys a kind of humane warmth that eloquently speaks some of the feelings the humans never exhibit.

I can't really process what I've seen tonight. it really is a dramatically different experience on the cinema. It makes me realise what a thread everything is hanging on... literally in terms of the effects, yet how expertly the visual language is delivered to you, with careful or fortuitous lighting (the monolith lit by the sun, Bowman's face obscured and illuminated by console lights of green and yellow, joining the red of his suit.) Tonight I was able to appreciate the solar ballet scored by Ligeti's Requiem where the planets line up with the sun and the monolith. We see that from a number of different hair raising angles at different points in the solar system, and it's possibly for me the most astonishing sequence of the film. I don't know what it means. The last moments blew my mind when I first saw them as an 8 year old, and tonight I had tears in my eyes. This film is utterly forbidding, confident, unforgiving art. It's a miracle that it exists.

This put me in the mood for the screening tonight.

finnquark

I just saw this on my half-day from work. I've never seen it before. Fuck me... Need to sit and think, read this thread and then might be able to contribute something.

saltysnacks

#73
I think that it is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, Kubrick depicts destruction as a necessary part of development. Immediately after the slaughter, after the anger of the apes, we are treated to the waltz in space. So the Star-Child may cause pain and suffering, but maybe greater things than we can possibly imagine. The spectacle of colour that Dave is subjected to is both beautiful and terrifying, something I believe Kubrick is attempting to depict human beings as, both beautiful and terrifying.

fucking ponderous

Saw this for the first time ever today.

On my computer.

I thought it was brilliant but couldn't help but feel I would have appreciated it a lot more if I'd caught one of the re-issue screenings a few weeks ago. Seeing it on a very large screen with very loud screen must be revelatory, or at least obnoxious. 

popcorn

A few years ago I saw a screening of 2001 with my dad with a live orchestra and choir. During the bit where Hal does the lipreading my dad's phone went off. His ringtone was Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd. He sat there for a full minute or so oblivious to the possibility that this was his phone until someone hissed at him. That was the night I killed my dad.

St_Eddie

Quote from: popcorn on June 05, 2018, 07:40:22 AM
A few years ago I saw a screening of 2001 with my dad with a live orchestra and choir. During the bit where Hal does the lipreading my dad's phone went off. His ringtone was Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd. He sat there for a full minute or so oblivious to the possibility that this was his phone until someone hissed at him. That was the night I killed my dad.

Did you not notice either and tell your Dad that it's his phone?  Why would anyone think that a Waters-era Floyd song was a part of a 1968 film?  I mean, I know that 2001: A Space Odyssey was ahead of its time but not that ahead of its time.  I wouldn't have been able to sink far enough into my seat after such an incident.

popcorn

Careful With That Axe, Johnny!

Yes I gave him several prods but he shrugged it off. Bloody dad!!!

St_Eddie

Quote from: popcorn on June 05, 2018, 07:52:45 AM
Yes I gave him several prods but he shrugged it off. Bloody dad!!!

Dads really do excel at being "bloody dads!!!"  I've had a couple of such incidents at the cinema with mine; not phone related but rather my Dad angrily commentating about rude people in the seats near us, to the point where said people can hear him, which just makes me feel horribly tense and unable to enjoy the film at all.  I tell my Dad that we should just move but nope, he's not having any of it.  "Why should we move, THEY should SHUT UP!".  Bloody Dad!!!  I just want to watch a film, I'd sooner not get stabbed.

the

Went to the cinema and saw this for the first time ever last night. 7/10

Goldentony

Watched this last night with commentary while drawing and liked the revelation offered by Gary Lockwood that aliens might all look like Rock Hudson

Keebleman

Saw this tonight for the umpteenth time.  All films could disappear except for this one and cinema would still be justified as a Good Idea. 

Noticed for the first time (!) that the old guy on the bed was trying to touch the monolith, not just point towards it.

Also for the first time the vaguely pessimistic tone irritated me.  Why should humanity get frailer the longer it lasts?  Since the last time I saw the film I've read The Better Angels of Our Nature and I am consequently upbeat about our ability to meet and overcome whatever challenges the future may hold.

Cineworld billed it as a new reissue, which it patently wasn't so I'm going to ask for my money back.  Shan't tell them what a magnificent time I had.

saltysnacks

Quote from: Keebleman on June 12, 2018, 12:46:01 AM
Also for the first time the vaguely pessimistic tone irritated me.  Why should humanity get frailer the longer it lasts?  Since the last time I saw the film I've read The Better Angels of Our Nature and I am consequently upbeat about our ability to meet and overcome whatever challenges the future may

Oh dear.

Attila

Yay! I'm up in London during the week the IMAX is doing the 70mm showing, so I bought myself a ticket.


Howj Begg

Booked my IMAX tix today too!

Quote from: colacentral on June 04, 2018, 01:33:03 PM
snip

Forgot to say this was a fantastic post. I imagine all those cinematic elements will be multiplied on IMAX screen.

I just hope this also has the roadshow elements, ie Ligeti prologue, intermission + Ligeti, Blue Danube ending etc.

Keebleman

I complained to Cineworld about their misleading advertising:

QuoteYesterday I went to see 2001 in Cardiff.  It was advertised as being the 2018 restoration, but it wasn't: the BBFC certificate at the start was from the 90s.  Please refund the cost of my ticket.

Yours sincerely,

K. Eebleman

They replied:

QuoteDear K.

Thank you for contacting Cineworld.

I am sorry to hear that you were not happy with the 2001 : A Space Odyssey (Re : 2018) you went to see.

I can advise you that the films arrive with Cineworld from the Distribution company and we therefore have no control over their content or length.

It is up to our customers to enjoy a performance or to have a personal view of it, but ultimately we have no control over the production of the film, Cineworld are merely the hosts for the content the Distributors wish to broadcast. Cineworld do not make the films, we just provide a place for people to watch them.

I am sorry you did not enjoy this film but any further feedback you have would be more effectively addressed by the distributors of the film.

Kind regards

Lucas

Cineworld Customer Services

It's a shame Lucas wasn't in front of me as I would dearly love to have slapped him at least slightly.  As it was I replied that the response was unsatisfactory and I would be taking it up with  the ASA, and I have done so.

I'll get my £4.70 back somehow!

St_Eddie

Quote from: Keebleman on June 13, 2018, 06:47:10 PM
I complained to Cineworld about their misleading advertising:

They replied:

It's a shame Lucas wasn't in front of me as I would dearly love to have slapped him at least slightly.  As it was I replied that the response was unsatisfactory and I would be taking it up with  the ASA, and I have done so.

I'll get my £4.70 back somehow!

If it was indeed advertised as the 2018 restoration, then Cineworld are guilty of false advertising.  However, you yourself, in your own complaint to Cineworld, said that you were made aware that it wasn't the 2018 restoration via the BBFC certificate, just prior to the film starting.  That was your cue to leave the screening and ask for a refund.  You didn't though.  You chose to sit and watch the entire film, despite being aware that it wasn't the 2018 restoration that you had initially expected.

It's akin to ordering a cheeseburger, receiving a burger without cheese, eating it anyway and then complaining to the staff, saying that you noticed that there wasn't any cheese on your burger just prior to you commencing to eat the entire thing and then demanding a refund.

You're not entitled to a refund, you tit.  However, if you kick up enough of a fuss, then they'll probably refund your ticket anyway, just to keep good customer relations but quite honestly, you don't deserve it.

Keebleman

Quote from: St_Eddie on June 13, 2018, 07:08:34 PM
If it was indeed advertised as the 2018 restoration, then Cineworld are guilty of false advertising.  However, you yourself, in your own complaint to Cineworld, said that you were made aware that it wasn't the 2018 restoration via the BBFC certificate, just prior to the film starting.  That was your cue to leave the screening and ask for a refund.  You didn't though.  You chose to sit and watch the entire film, despite being aware that it wasn't the 2018 restoration that you had initially expected.

It's akin to ordering a cheeseburger, receiving a burger without cheese, eating it anyway and then complaining to the staff, saying that you noticed that there wasn't any cheese on your burger just prior to you commencing to eat the entire thing and then demanding a refund.

You're not entitled to a refund, you tit.  If you kick up enough of a fuss, then they'll probably refund your ticket anyway, just to keep good customer relations but quite honestly, you don't deserve it.

Alright, Lucas, keep your hair on.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Keebleman on June 13, 2018, 07:14:30 PM
Alright, Lucas, keep your hair on.

Were you expecting everyone to just applaud your attempt to swindle a free screening out of my cinema?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  Not from me at least.

And don't ever say that you'd like to slap me again!

Bad Ambassador

Not every thread has to turn into a stand-up brawl, you know.