I dunno, are we? I don’t see anyone doing that in this thread.mfunk9786 wrote:If anything aggravates me about film fandom in general in the last [insert amount of] years even more than superhero films becoming their own self-serious genre, it's people ragging on SFX for the sin of merely existing at all. Are we really questioning the validity of the SFX sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey now?
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Brian C wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:15 amI dunno, are we? I don’t see anyone doing that in this thread.mfunk9786 wrote:If anything aggravates me about film fandom in general in the last [insert amount of] years even more than superhero films becoming their own self-serious genre, it's people ragging on SFX for the sin of merely existing at all. Are we really questioning the validity of the SFX sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey now?
I mean, I do, but I know you can't resist a good row. Too busy today, though - enjoy whatever it is you wanted to accomplish here in my stead, though!
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Do these exchanges always have to be this confrontational or can we instead suppose that maybe Brian simply missed this post and you could elaborate your views on SFX and stuff instead of simply answering this way ?
I don't mean that in any personal way, but from a rather outsider view like mine (I have no idea about the different past history between members here), it seems like some members have personal issues with other members. And if that's not the case, well, if it looks like it, there might be the need to tone down some responses.
In the present case, we could have had some potentially interesting discussion over the integration of SFX in a narration like 2001's vs something more recent. Instead, we just get pointless bickering. This is unfortunate and undermining.
On another board, I would have asked you for instance to elaborate what you meant about your ragging on SFX post since I seem to have had misunderstood what you meant. But I just don't think I should, because I feel I'm just likely to be slammed down for having misunderstood your point in the first place rather than being corrected through a simple but extended explanation of what you just meant.
I don't mean that in any personal way, but from a rather outsider view like mine (I have no idea about the different past history between members here), it seems like some members have personal issues with other members. And if that's not the case, well, if it looks like it, there might be the need to tone down some responses.
In the present case, we could have had some potentially interesting discussion over the integration of SFX in a narration like 2001's vs something more recent. Instead, we just get pointless bickering. This is unfortunate and undermining.
On another board, I would have asked you for instance to elaborate what you meant about your ragging on SFX post since I seem to have had misunderstood what you meant. But I just don't think I should, because I feel I'm just likely to be slammed down for having misunderstood your point in the first place rather than being corrected through a simple but extended explanation of what you just meant.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
For my part, I wasn't really trying to start a fight - I just didn't see anyone, as mfunk said, "ragging on SFX for the sin of merely existing at all." Even after his response, I don't think that's what Zot! was doing ... Zot! in fact says he liked the film. It was more a question of (as tenia put it) integration of those particular scenes with the narrative, which seems like very reasonable criticism to make.
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
It's probably worth noting that, as of a few days ago, some of the venues listed on Warner's website as showing this in 70mm are actually showing the 2k or 4k DCPs (e.g., some Alamo Drafthouses in the DC area, and the Ambler and County near Philadelphia). They seem to have fixed those instances, but who knows if there are other mistakes that haven't been caught.
If you care about seeing this on 70mm, before you make plans, I would recommend checking the theater's website and calling the house manager to be absolutely sure.
If you care about seeing this on 70mm, before you make plans, I would recommend checking the theater's website and calling the house manager to be absolutely sure.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Good advice! I will add only to be patient when the manager says in response, “Um ... well we’re showing it in IMAX.”
- Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
- Location: Atlanta
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I think the same error happened with Atlanta - at least, I could've sworn when I first looked at the Warner site, it was listed as 70mm but ended up being 4K IMAX.
I was lucky however to catch a 70mm screening in Paris this past May, and it certainly looked and sounded better than the 4K screening here last week, although everyone else I saw it with in Atlanta of course thought it looked fantastic in its own right (which to be fair it did).
One difference that jumped out at me seeing them both a few months apart is that the film projection was, unsurprisingly, more forgiving of the small handful of effects shots that aren't completely perfect (most notably some of the windows with people composited into larger shots, the plates do slide around a bit, not always perfectly tracking with the rest of the shot).
Could be that the subtle gate weave of the film projection is enough to smooth over our perception of these tiny flaws - one wonders if Kubrick, looking at a completely stable digital transfer, would have signed off on these or demanded further refinements!
The other big difference for me was the sound - especially the overture and the ear-piercingly loud cosmic alarm emitted by the Monolith. The alarm in particular was right at the pain threshold in the most glorious way, whereas the digital projection was loud but within more typical levels. That could just come down to projection/venue differences however.
I was lucky however to catch a 70mm screening in Paris this past May, and it certainly looked and sounded better than the 4K screening here last week, although everyone else I saw it with in Atlanta of course thought it looked fantastic in its own right (which to be fair it did).
One difference that jumped out at me seeing them both a few months apart is that the film projection was, unsurprisingly, more forgiving of the small handful of effects shots that aren't completely perfect (most notably some of the windows with people composited into larger shots, the plates do slide around a bit, not always perfectly tracking with the rest of the shot).
Could be that the subtle gate weave of the film projection is enough to smooth over our perception of these tiny flaws - one wonders if Kubrick, looking at a completely stable digital transfer, would have signed off on these or demanded further refinements!
The other big difference for me was the sound - especially the overture and the ear-piercingly loud cosmic alarm emitted by the Monolith. The alarm in particular was right at the pain threshold in the most glorious way, whereas the digital projection was loud but within more typical levels. That could just come down to projection/venue differences however.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:35 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I was going to wait for the UHD but decided to go to the final 4K DCP showing in my area just to check out the remastered colouring. I thought it looked fantastic with no noticeable yellowing apart from Dave Bowman in the "white hall" retrieving the AE35 replacement unit. That "white hall" was a VERY warm yellow lighting. I even put in my BD when I got home thinking maybe it was always a bit yellowish, but no it's white on the BD (but not Daz Ultra white like on the new upcoming BD cover either). That said in the 4K DCP (and the current BD too) anytime the entrance to the "white hall" is visible from scenes in the pod bay area it does have a somewhat warm glow to it. However, in Dave's scene it appears too warm in the 4K and maybe a little too white in the BD. I've heard in the IMAX version the white hall does indeed appear white as on the BD.GoodOldNeon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:57 pmSo, I saw the new 4K DCP version of 2001 tonight, and I thought it looked very yellow. I've seen some people suggesting that the pronounced teal/yellow seen in the trailer was added by whoever edited the trailer itself, but the version I saw tonight was definitely closer in colour to the trailer than to the 2007 Blu-ray. The most striking and distracting example was Dave walking down the "white" hall (c. 0:47). That said, it was still great seeing the film on the big screen for the first time.
- bunuelian
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
When I first saw this on DVD I was amazed by how disorienting it was to see the film in a resolution that obliterated the sense of authenticity in the Dawn of Man studio sequences. Digital stripped away the scuzzy quality that masked some of the studio-ness, at least to my eye. Sounds like this process has only continued with successive generations of digitization.
- Lost Highway
- Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I did not realise 2001 was supposed to look like a grindhouse film.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I thought the previous BluRay looked spectacular. No problems enjoying any segment. Unless I upgrade our TV, no plan to replace the BRD we already have.
- htom
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:57 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
About the only complaint I could concur with is that the texture of the screen used in the front projection shots in the "Dawn of Man" sequence was sometimes visible. This was usually in high contrast shots with the texture only visible in the sky.Michael Kerpan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:07 pmI thought the previous BluRay looked spectacular. No problems enjoying any segment. Unless I upgrade our TV, no plan to replace the BRD we already have.
- Roscoe
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
So with all these differing versions of the film floating around, does this mean that Kubrick really left no specific notes or specifications as to the color timing of this film? Is that possible? The guy would leave detailed instructions to staff about exactly how to deal with fights among the cats in his household, but nothing about exactly how he wanted 2001 to look?
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I guess I'm amongst the minority in thinking the current 2001 Blu-ray is quite dated and could definitely enjoy an update. It definitely uses an older master which, despite being rather unmaniputaled and natural looking, has this typical "pre-existing HD master" texture, but also probably could use a bump in encode (the older BD was using VC-1 at a mere 13.4 Mbps !). I'm quite certain that at least in terms of texture, the new BD should provide a visible change.
Last edited by tenia on Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:35 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I've always thought the colour grading looked consistent across various releases I've seen: a 70mm showing in 2001, the current Blu-ray, a DCP release in 2014, and the latest 4K release last week. The only release which seems to be casting doubt on the colour grading is Christopher Nolan's "unrestored" 70mm which I have not seen but would regard as a one-off separate from the new restoration. I have confidence that the UHD will not disappoint - I mean it would take some effort to screw it up than to do it properly surely?Roscoe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 amSo with all these differing versions of the film floating around, does this mean that Kubrick really left no specific notes or specifications as to the color timing of this film? Is that possible? The guy would leave detailed instructions to staff about exactly how to deal with fights among the cats in his household, but nothing about exactly how he wanted 2001 to look?
I guess the next great Kubrick debate will be around the grain (or lack thereof) whenever Eyes Wide Shut gets a remastering. BTW, do all current US releases of EWS still have the terrible black-cloaked figures CGI'ed in during the masked orgy scenes or has that sacrilege been rectified?
Last edited by ivuernis on Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Roscoe
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Yeah, that was pretty much my experience of it -- it always looked great until Nolan. I'm hoping that the new UHD etc. will not be the Nolan version. Is there confirmation of that anywhere?ivuernis wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:55 amThe only release which seems to be casting doubt on the colour grading is Christopher Nolan's "unrestored" 70mm which I have not seen but would regard as a one-off separate from the new restoration. I have confidence that the UHD will not disappoint - I mean it would take some effort to screw it up than to do it properly surely? I guess the next great Kubrick debate will be around the grain (or lack thereof) whenever Eyes Wide Shut gets a remastering.
Apologies for editing the comment, not looking to add confusion to confusion...
Last edited by Roscoe on Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
No, there's confirmation that it will be
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
The North American Blu-Ray release uses Kubrick's original footage (no CGI figures added). There was some talk of including both censored and uncensored versions on the disc, but only the uncensored version was included.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:35 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
As I said I have not seen the Nolan version but the 4K version I saw looked consistent with previous releases and not look like the trailer for the Nolan version (yellow "spare parts tunnel" scene aside).Roscoe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:59 amI'm hoping that the new UHD etc. will not be the Nolan version. Is there confirmation of that anywhere?ivuernis wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:55 amThe only release which seems to be casting doubt on the colour grading is Christopher Nolan's "unrestored" 70mm which I have not seen but would regard as a one-off separate from the new restoration. I have confidence that the UHD will not disappoint - I mean it would take some effort to screw it up than to do it properly surely? I guess the next great Kubrick debate will be around the grain (or lack thereof) whenever Eyes Wide Shut gets a remastering.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:35 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Ok, that's good to know, must've just been the original VHS and DVD releases then. Don't see any reason for a version to include both the censored and uncensored versions. The censored version should be consigned to the dustbin of history.Roger Ryan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:06 pmThe North American Blu-Ray release uses Kubrick's original footage (no CGI figures added). There was some talk of including both censored and uncensored versions on the disc, but only the uncensored version was included.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:35 pm
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
AFAIK the Nolan version won't be getting released outside of the 70mm cinema release.Roscoe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:59 amYeah, that was pretty much my experience of it -- it always looked great until Nolan. Sorry to be a drag on this, but is there any way of knowing which version will be hitting UHD and home video and stuff? I'm hoping they'll all be clearly labelled.ivuernis wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:55 amThe only release which seems to be casting doubt on the colour grading is Christopher Nolan's "unrestored" 70mm which I have not seen but would regard as a one-off separate from the new restoration. I have confidence that the UHD will not disappoint - I mean it would take some effort to screw it up than to do it properly surely? I guess the next great Kubrick debate will be around the grain (or lack thereof) whenever Eyes Wide Shut gets a remastering.
P.S. I hate that I'm now unconsciously referring to a "Nolan" version of 2001.
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
what exactly are the objections to the newly-struck 70mm prints?
- senseabove
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
They are vaguely claimed to have been derived from the original camera negatives, and definitely claimed to have had no restoration work done at all. So presumably just a flat OCN to new interpositive to new internegative to the release prints (though I've also read the opinion that the OCNs are too damaged for that to be true, so the new prints must be derived from an older IN, or possibly a new IN derived from an older IP). Which sounds great in theory—authenticity! original elements!—but it also means no damage repair, no dirt removal, etc., and in particular, no age-related color correction, so arguably the whites have yellowed a bit, brighter colors have faded a bit...whaleallright wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:29 pmwhat exactly are the objections to the newly-struck 70mm prints?
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
I just want to reiterate that I did see the new print and it was amazing. Maybe the colors were a bit off, I'm not sure. Nothing struck me while watching it as being wrong. In fact I distinctly remember thinking that film's texture very much resembled the look of mid-60s film stock that we see in home video and I've seen theatrically plenty of times (especially in the dawn of man sequences).
I saw a really faded print of Rio Bravo last year and it was one of the best filmgoing experiences I've ever had. 2001 was equally enjoyable, and it was a higher quality print than the one that I saw at MOMI in 70mm 3 years ago.
The whining by those who haven't even seen it is getting out of hand.
I saw a really faded print of Rio Bravo last year and it was one of the best filmgoing experiences I've ever had. 2001 was equally enjoyable, and it was a higher quality print than the one that I saw at MOMI in 70mm 3 years ago.
The whining by those who haven't even seen it is getting out of hand.
- Roscoe
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Which new print did you see? The Nolan version? The Nolan print they ran at MOMI recently had definite color-timing issues, and detail in darker elements was missing -- in the hotel room at film's end, you could see none of the details of what the actor was wearing as he sat at that table, it was a black blur with Dullea's head and hands attached.Drucker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:34 pmI just want to reiterate that I did see the new print and it was amazing. Maybe the colors were a bit off, I'm not sure. Nothing struck me while watching it as being wrong. In fact I distinctly remember thinking that film's texture very much resembled the look of mid-60s film stock that we see in home video and I've seen theatrically plenty of times (especially in the dawn of man sequences).
I saw a really faded print of Rio Bravo last year and it was one of the best filmgoing experiences I've ever had. 2001 was equally enjoyable, and it was a higher quality print than the one that I saw at MOMI in 70mm 3 years ago.
The whining by those who haven't even seen it is getting out of hand.