Christopher Nolan Returns Kubrick Sci-Fi Masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' To Its Original Glory (latimes.com)

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.

Comments

Re:Rotten Tomatoes: 10%

[Hognoxious]

It looks much better on vinyl.

Great

[rodrigoandrade]

Now where's the 4K torrent of that beauty?

Re:Great

[darkain]

Why settle for less? This generation is all about 8k now! Get with the times n00b.

Re:Great

[im_thatoneguy]

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:Great

[thegarbz]

*gag*. I'm not sure where on the color spectrum "emotional information" lives

Green which is probably why you gagged.

Re:Great

[religionofpeas]

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/...

Re:Great

[Required Snark]

There is no media that recreates the full range of color vision. The colors that can be displayed are the color gamut.

There is noise in both electronic recording and analog recording. Film has grain 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:Great

[Immerman]

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 uncooperative, and if true it seems like an *exceptionally* stupid decision - if you're going to attempt a three-frequency approximation of the n-dimensional visual color space it makes sense to use the three colors your intended audience has sensors to detect. (I'm sure our video colors look wildly inaccurate to an octopus that sees in 11-axis color) Of course the standard was quite likely established by engineers - a group well know for their appreciation of technical elegance over "soft" human experience, so I'd be willing to believe it.

As for grain versus pixels - there are at least two important difference between the limitations of the two, especially in video. Lets say you take two "identical" photos, one digital, and one film, with an equal number of pixels and grains. The digital one will have a very obvious (and unnatural) rectilinear grid imposed upon it, making for a qualitatively different (and slightly jarring) viewing experience - at the most obvious you don't get extended "jaggies" on edges in film. Grains also bleed together smoothly, essentially giving you nigh-infinite-quality "full screen anti-aliasing" - though a DLP projector utilizing curved micro-mirrors can deliver a very similar "pixel-free" effect.

The second big effect is strictly relevant to video - with digital any point on the screen corresponds to exactly one pixel (or some fixed blending function of adjacent pixels, in the case of curved-DLP). With film in contrast, thanks to that random distribution of grains, a single point on the screen corresponds to a different sampling weight on every frame - some frames it will be nearly centered on a grain and very accurately sampled, others it will lie nearly between grains, and contribute almost nothing to the surrounding grain colors. When the frames are played back fast enough for the brain to blend them together, the result is a higher effective resolution than is present in any single frame.

Re:Actually...

[ChoGGi]

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:Too Bad

[jfdavis668]

Sorry, but 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. The movie uses perspectives that aren't often used in motion pictures any more, and rarely in the past. It works to put you into the perspective of the subject, and you only know what he knows. It doesn't explain the situation to you, you have to experience it and figure it out just as the subject does, too. 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.

Timeless film

[TheZeitgeist]

2001 still most compelling sci-fi movie ever made. Haters can't stand the long cut scenes etc., but then go watch a (so fake its painful to watch) CGI Midtown fall down in 'new' way for Avengers 57 or whatever.

Re:Timeless film

[TheZeitgeist]

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

[TheZeitgeist]

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:Too Bad

[jlv]

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/...

Re:Rotten Tomatoes: 10%

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Actually...

[Kiwikwi]

The original was in Cinerama.

They're not mutually exclusive: Wikipedia 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)".

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 projection has suffered from noticeable "hot spotting" (not a problem with digital projection for some reason). Fortunately, unlike Nolan, I have no problems with digital projection. :-)

Re:Too Bad

[UnknownSoldier]

I highly would recommend Meditation and/or Fishing to help with your monkey mind -- 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.

Full comprehension

[NEDHead]

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.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

^ 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 understand it's not for everyone, and in particular modern ADHD people weaned on constant hyper-stimulation rather than using their own minds and imaginations often do not enjoy it. That does not change its greatness.

First time

[Dusthead Jr.]

I remember the first time I saw 2001. I was at my grandmothers place and it was on cable. I didn't see it from the begining, I came in on the star gate scene. I was sitting there thinking WTF am I watching? I liked it. Then came the hotel scene, then the star child scene. Even eventually after watching the whole movie I still didn't get it. It wasn't until I read the book that it made any sense. When ever I read 2001 I visualize it as the movie because I can't think of anything better. I even imagine Heywood Floyd portrayed by Roy Scheider.

Re:Too Bad

[Thelasko]

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)

How about a different Nolan/Clarke project?

[weeboo0104]

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?

Its provides a window into the past.

[Monster_user]

Star Trek The Motion Picture tried to match the pacing. The series did not retain that slow pace. Most will agree that it is too slow.

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:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Too Bad

[epine]

Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket?

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 bomb shot.

For the record, the first time I read Lord of the Rings (all three volumes, one weekend, age 13) I experienced intense annoyance whenever Tolkien abandoned one narrative line to rejoin some other fellowship splinter group.

By the time I got to Full Metal Jacket I had mostly outgrown this, though it still annoyed me for ten full minutes. Basically, "not now Helga, can't you see I'm still banging your sister?"

Bad, Kubrick, bad.

———

Kubrick rarely hesitates to bend time in the other direction, either.

The litmus test for true Kubrick lovers is Barry Lyndon.

John Hofsess: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love 'Barry Lyndon' — 1976

Like many other critics and filmgoers, I have grown so accustomed to films based on literary conventions and familiar structures, that to see a film which stretches one's awareness of what can be achieved in the medium seems prickly and puzzling.

Kubrick's films have a way—at least with some people—of working on in the mind, of passing through all the stages from irritation to exhilaration.

And curiously enough—for critics are supposed to be the most progressive an perceptive of filmgoers—it is the general public in this case, unencumbered by literary prejudices, that has done most of the leading in making 2001 and A Clockwork Orange not just films of immense popularity but of steadily growing stature.

An interview with Michel Ciment — 1982

In the scene that you're referring to, the voice-over works as an ironic counterpoint to what you see portrayed by the actors on the screen. This is only a minor sequence in the story and has to be presented with economy. Barry is tender and romantic with the girl but all he really wants is to get her into bed. The girl is lonely and Barry is attractive and attentive.

If you think about it, it isn't likely that he is the only soldier she has brought home while her husband has been away to the wars. You could have had Barry give signals to the audience, through his performance, indicating that he is really insincere and opportunistic, but this would be unreal. When we try to deceive we are as convincing as we can be, aren't we?

No wink. Blink and you miss it.

———

At this point, I also want to give a shout out to another very long film, La Belle Noiseuse (1991), with the 237-minute run time.

The film holds an approval rating of 100% on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes.

How does such a stupidly long movie earn a 100% approval rating? Not a single Michael Bay fan attended this movie by accident. French title, and not a single showing with a start time after 18:30.

Roger Ebert

She understands, puts it on, disrobes in front of him, and will be entirely nude for at least at hour in this film. Yes, at first we observe Emmanuelle Beart as a woman. Then we see her as a model. Slowly we come to see her as Frenhofer wants to: The woman inside, the essence, the being

Re:Too Bad

[Peter P Peters]

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:Too Bad

[Peter P Peters]

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:Too Bad

[Required Snark]

Go back to watching Power Rangers you moron. It's obviously your type of entertainment.

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.)

Nolan has a point

[davide marney]

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 produces a film that is just amazingly more stable and overall enjoyable by a factor of 10 over the old movie projection systems.

But sure, if I could see a fresh 70mm print on a calibrated projector, that would be worth some money. It's similar to the IMAX experience. I just love the opening of Dark Knight in an IMAX theater, where the film just throws you right into an IMAX helicopter shot, bam! You can literally feel your body slump forward. That's an awesome effect.