criterionforum.org

One of the revelations of the 4K version is the clearer look of relief on Dave’s face once the door to the Discovery closes and he can breathe again.

I actually caught the DCP of the latest restoration at MoMI back in August, and it looks incredible if anyone ever considers seeing a digital projection in the near future.

There's another little moment, after HAL's error has been exposed, when Frank and Dave are in the pod bay as HAL is rotating the pod so they can "investigate the static on the audio channel", where Dave shoots Frank a look of "shit, man, we're in trouble" that just doesn't really register on home video.

I'm wondering also about the timing of HAL's error with the AE-35 Unit. The scene begins with HAL complimenting Dave's drawings ("That's a very nice rendering Dave. I think you've improved a great deal.") leading into HAL's pumping of Dave for information, culminating in Dave's smiling reply "You're working up your crew psychology report." Coming after HAL easily beats Frank in chess, this little bit of out-maneuvering on Dave's part is interesting. It seems revealing of something anyway, that HAL's meltdown comes immediately after HAL has been straight up out-thought by a mere human.

Article on experimental filmmakers Fred Martin and John Malick contributing to 2001:
https://filmmakermagazine.com/112357-st ... c5Twi-B0-O

Stefan Andersson wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:12 pm Article on experimental filmmakers Fred Martin and John Malick contributing to 2001:
https://filmmakermagazine.com/112357-st ... c5Twi-B0-O

TRIGGER WARNING: CONTENT

Spoiler

Good stuff. The most (perhaps only) new and interesting info in Mike Benson's recent "making of 2001" book was the bit about the above experiments, and especially the fact that this footage was the first shot for the film. Too bad snot-nosed Kael isn't around to amend her condescending assertion that Kubrick was swiping from Jordan Belson -- she should have blamed Martin and Malick instead!

Of course, if she'd been around for The other Malick's Tree of life, I'm sure she would have accused him of lifting Belson as well...

Robert Chipeska wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:16 pm TRIGGER WARNING: CONTENT

Mod here. You made your point, now stop doing this. It’s not funny and makes your posts (more) difficult to engage with

Not to resurrect an old part of this thread, but was the color timing of the new UHD ever determined to be correct or incorrect? After vowing to never get one, I bought a UHD player for cheap and got the Kubrick set to start as I've seen all these films numerous times and have a pretty good memory of what they look like. 2001 remains the one I've seen the most having seen it on 70mm at least five or six times. I'm never one to get caught up in controversies regarding new restorations and their color, but the colors are so much more subdued here than from what I recall the theatrical print looking like. The red chairs in the space station looked far less vibrant and the colors of all the suits are a cooler shade. I'm not sure how much 60s projection technology versus contemporary film projection technology affects what we see in terms of color in a film with later developed Xenon technology creating a much whiter light, but is this restoration more indicative of what it looked like in the sixties? Other than that, the image of it is magnificent and feels like a 70mm projection shrunken to fit my screen.

Douglas Trumbull on 2001 and other films:
https://parallax-view.org/2022/02/09/br ... -trumbull/

Please forgive my ignorance and inability to find the answer to my question on my own, but is there a single physical release of this film that includes BOTH the newest 4K restoration AND the “unrestored” Christopher Nolan print (either on BD or UHD)? Or was that Nolan version just a stunt for theaters?

^It was just a stunt for theaters. As all the prints were produced photochemically it would probably require further major work for release on disk.

Thanks! I would absolutely shell out for an 4K UHD or digital version of an unrestored scan of that version, though. Something for the 55th anniversary, Warner Bros. Discovery?

Be careful what you wish for, because the results weren't all that great. I saw it three times from two different prints. First screening I thought there were registration problems with the projector or damage to the print due to the bob and weave on display. Viewing the second print confirmed that this was actually baked into the prints, so it was presumably down to a screw-up at the lab. There were also colour problems -- yellowish stars, for example.

Maybe the skilled personnel required to produce top notch film prints are no longer around? In any case, I've seen multiple 70mm prints of 2001 over the years and these were easily the poorest. (The gold standard has always been the original prints from the late sixties).

For anyone based in Paris or the environs, this is getting screened in 70mm at the Cinématheque Française in the 12th arrondissement of Paris on Thursday evening at 8 PM.

I did the sync-up with Pink Floyd's “Echoes” and the Jupiter section, old party trick but man it really demands the attention once the 2nd chorus hits and the camera lifts into those intense illuminated sequences. Nobody did the horizon quite like Trumbull did here and later in Blade Runner. I’m just starting the more recent book about the movie by Michael Benson that Scorsese and Hanks gave high recommendations on.

There are some amusing and powerful coincidences in listening to Dark Side of the Moon while watching this from the time the MGM logo appears, to 43 minutes later when a brief round of applause is had for Dr. Floyd.

Sorry for the gossipy shit-post, but there is something genuinely compelling about this accidental image from the Epstein files with a redacted person on a beach. This will be the new Justin Bieber's renaissance painting meme.

Those sick fucks even violated the Monolith.

I know there are some deranged interpretations of Kubrick movies out there, but finding a giant pedophile on the moon really takes the cake.

But 2001 is "a film about everything".

(I can't remember who said that, nor can I find it.)

Edit: Barry Jenkins.

The really tippy-top influential movies like this should have that kind of flexibility towards relativity to any and all subjects. It’s impossible to be mad at filmmakers who make clear homages to it in their work, for partly this reason.