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

[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: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: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.

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.