2001: a space odyssey on the big screen

[kap'n krunch]

My LOVELY wife, just found out that they are playing 2001 in "Versión original" (meaning "with subtitles"- most movies in cinemas in Spain are DUBBED!..and then they bitch "why is it that Spaniards' English level is so bad????" well, thank Uncle Franco for that!) in a great cinema this Thursday night...got us tickets...

Has anybody seen this in a theater recently? I suspect that it'll be a BluRay projection....anyway, just asking...since the theater is now totally digital...maybe I've mentioned it before , but Digital Cinema is like the "CD" of movies..yes, there are no imperfections, but, it does NOT have the richness of a REAL PRINT..DAMN THE SCRATCHES and the imperfection.. I WANT A REAL MOVIE..not a digital (IIRC , it's 2K resolution) COPY..but , still it's gonna be a lot of fun....

BTW... my baby LOOVES me!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Hey kap'n...there is one guy on this forum that I believe can answer most questions about 2001...I've heard he actually used to talk to Hal 9000..you could PM him...HERE HE IS....DocCasualty

 

[JonUrban]

I vaguely remember seeing that movie when it came out, in CINERAMA, believe it or not. God damn I'm getting old. Back when it came out it was so far ahead of anything else of its type it was a total spectacular. Back in the late '60s, at the rate technology was progressing, having Pan Am flights to the moon did not seem that far fetched. We went from nowhere to the moon in 9 years. In the following 40, we've pretty much done squat.

 

[leevitalone1]

I vaguely remember seeing that movie when it came out, in CINERAMA, believe it or not. God damn I'm getting old. Back when it came out it was so far ahead of anything else of its type it was a total spectacular. Back in the late '60s, at the rate technology was progressing, having Pan Am flights to the moon did not seem that far fetched. We went from nowhere to the moon in 9 years. In the following 40, we've pretty much done squat.

In the following 40, we've pretty much done squat.

Except make messes all over the place.

 

[atrocity]

Has anybody seen this in a theater recently? I suspect that it'll be a BluRay projection

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-movies-concerts-music-discussion/1458885-2001-space-odyssey-70mm.html mentions a new 70mm print being shown in Chicago in 2013. Though a semi-local showing a year or so back to close an old theater for good allegedly resorted to the Blu-ray.

I'm glad you made me look...the last new prints I was aware of were struck, appropriately enough, in 2001. I was fortunate to see one of them a few times, including twice on a not-quite-right Cinerama screen in Seattle.

 

[EMB]

Although my memory is fuzzy on some of this, I believe I first saw 2001 in the summer of 1970, in a Super 70 print; and later, in a standard Panavision print.

To this day, however, I'm not sure that the film has ever been reissued on media in its full wide camera ratio; all Laser and DVD versions seem to conform to a standard widescreen ratio, but it seems to me in some interior shots sides are cut off a bit, to conform to standard 2.35:1 Panavison ratio for most movie houses.

But it's one of my favorites, maybe because it is obscure in its intentions (so much so that Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the original novel on which this is all based, and co-wrote the screenplay, wasn't sure what director Stanley Kubrick was really after). And it visually showed what was to come for '70s sci-fi (STAR WARS is inconceivable without it).

ED

 

[timbre4]

This would probably be the first 4K Blu Ray I'd buy; it's been ready for several years now.

 

[Snood]

Funny this should come up........Snood work in office with just one other guy, He College Grad from West Virginia - The Mountaineers - yeeehaaaaw

he is 54 years old and Snood made a comment after he sneezing and seeing spots streaking for a sec.......Snood says it OMG it's full of stars.

Well he was like ummm yeah they kinda looked like that. Snood was like you know where that is from right?? NOPE - Snood explained and he said he never heard of it WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA???

Snood was like call your wife and ask her - ask your 2 college Junior (1 year away from graduating college in USA) daughters if they ever seen it.............he came back next day and none of them have ever seen it OMG

Snood was a lil like you got be kidding me to the infinite power...........

Told him would let him borrow my bluray...........but me very scared that him and his family (daughters still at home) would be like ummmmm ummmmmm ummmm

Snood told him, that his daughters being in college NOW should see this movie just even to say they seen it and are aware of it and can somewhat discuss it. Asked him how he could go through college in 1974-78 and not have seen this or heard about it..........and yes he smoked green leafy notched pronged plants.

Snood is/was like WTF?? Amazing!

 

[paligap]

But it's one of my favorites, maybe because it is obscure in its intentions (so much so that Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the original novel on which this is all based, and co-wrote the screenplay, wasn't sure what director Stanley Kubrick was really after). And it visually showed what was to come for '70s sci-fi (STAR WARS is inconceivable without it).ED

It's one of my favorites, too, for precisely the reason you cited. The development of the novel and the screenplay was actually pretty complicated. In some ways, the novel is almost a "novelization" of the screenplay; it was published after the movie. It also explains a lot of things that the movie doesn't. If you've ever read Clarke's other fiction, you'll know he was not one to leave readers with a lot of ambiguity.

When I taught years ago, I got to teach a science fiction class every so often. We read the novel, watched the movie, and compared the two. Most of the kids didn't really get into either, but that could have had more to do with my shortcomings as a teacher than anything else. Regardless, I'll never forget watching it as a teen in the early 70s and walking out of the theater with a sense of amazement I've never really felt since, although Interstellar recently came close.

 

[leevitalone1]

2001 a movie about space-that got me all spaced out.

 

[Lute]

Big fan of this film and SF in general. I probably see this movie 2 or 3 times a year. It never gets dated. It just gets better and better. I especially love the part when they're traveling out to Jupiter. The silence is breathtaking.

This year some exciting things are happening in our solar system. After a 9 year journey, the New Horizons probe has reached Pluto and will be sending back the first close-up photos and other data of the former outermost planet.
Here is some more info...http://www.vox.com/2015/4/14/8412031/pluto-new-horizons

And...another probe, Dawn has found some mysterious lights on the drawf plant Ceres, located between Mars and Jupiter.
Here's a link for more...http://earthsky.org/space/mysterious-bright-spots-in-newest-ceres-images

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Although I like 2001...I prefer 2010 for entertainment purposes..the late Roy Scheider did a nice job in that movie...I like sci fi flicks...especially Apollo 13...of course I'm a little partial to Space Cowboys..hehe..

 

[cupboy]

Although I like 2001...I prefer 2010 for entertainment purposes..the late Roy Scheider did a nice job in that movie...I like sci fi flicks...especially Apollo 13...of course I'm a little partial to Space Cowboys..hehe..

Is there any Steve Miller music in it?

 

[Lute]

Although I like 2001...I prefer 2010 for entertainment purposes..the late Roy Scheider did a nice job in that movie...I like sci fi flicks...especially Apollo 13...of course I'm a little partial to Space Cowboys..hehe..

I saw 2010 (again) a few months ago. It's held up well. Roy Scheider is always good. Apollo 13 did a heck of job retelling that freightening mission. The Right Stuff is another classic with a great cast and soundtrack. I was blown away by the visuals of Gravity! Sandra Bullock did a wonderful job as a Space Cowgirl. There are so many great SF flicks. While listening to Tangerine Dreams SHM-SACD's, I kept thinking about the soundtrack to Forbidden Planet. Those old SF soundtracks are the true beginnings of Progressive Rock.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I saw 2010 (again) a few months ago. It's held up well. Roy Scheider is always good. Apollo 13 did a heck of job retelling that freightening mission. The Right Stuff is another classic with a great cast and soundtrack. I was blown away by the visuals of Gravity! Sandra Bullock did a wonderful job as a Space Cowgirl. There are so many great SF flicks. While listening to Tangerine Dreams SHM-SACD's, I kept thinking about the soundtrack to Forbidden Planet. Those old SF soundtracks are the true beginnings of Progressive Rock.

A blu ray I recently rented...Interstellar...is pretty good...I enjoyed it...with some more work Christopher Nolan could have hit it out of the park...but felt short of a home run...but certainly not from lack of effort...he thought big...and some parts are complex...sometimes too convoluted..not a big Matthew McConaughey fan...but he did good work on this film...it's more a movie for the avid sci fi fan...but if you haven't seen it...rent it on blu ray...I'm sure you will enjoy it...

 

[atrocity]

Although my memory is fuzzy on some of this, I believe I first saw 2001 in the summer of 1970, in a Super 70 print; and later, in a standard Panavision print.

To this day, however, I'm not sure that the film has ever been reissued on media in its full wide camera ratio; all Laser and DVD versions seem to conform to a standard widescreen ratio, but it seems to me in some interior shots sides are cut off a bit, to conform to standard 2.35:1 Panavison ratio for most movie houses.

The 2001 negative is 65mm with a 2.20:1 aspect ratio that was retained for the 70mm prints. It was promoted as Cinerama, but all that meant by 1968 is that it was initially shown on Cinerama screens. None of the prior Cinerama tricks (three strips or an anamorphic squeeze or "rectified" prints) were used. Some prints have an "In Cinerama" credit, some don't. Weirdly, I've seen 35mm prints with the Cinerama credit and, circa 1987 once saw a 70mm print that had sloppily replaced the "In Cinerama" card with a bad, manually spliced in "In 70mm" card in a different font while the wrong part of "The Blue Danube" played! I assume l*wy*rs were involved somehow, but I had seen it in 70mm once before and three times after and those prints hadn't been vandalized.

The actual photographic process is credited as "Super Panavision", which just means a 65mm negative with no anamorphic squeeze. The exact same process is credited as "Panavision 70" on "West Side Story" and "Super Panavision 70" in other places. It's functionally identical to Todd-AO. Prior single-strip Cinerama features were shot in "Ultra Panavision", which was a 65mm negative with a 1.25 anamorphic squeeze.

Unusually, the original 35mm prints were not cropped on the top and bottom to 2.35:1 but side-matted to retain the full original 2.20:1. I don't know if that technique was used in subequent print runs, but you can see an example here.

Yes, I'm a bit of an obsessive nerd about this movie...

 

[Old Quad Guy]

The 2001 negative is 65mm with a 2.20:1 aspect ratio that was retained for the 70mm prints. It was promoted as Cinerama, but all that meant by 1968 is that it was initially shown on Cinerama screens. None of the prior Cinerama tricks (three strips or an anamorphic squeeze or "rectified" prints) were used. Some prints have an "In Cinerama" credit, some don't. Weirdly, I've seen 35mm prints with the Cinerama credit and, circa 1987 once saw a 70mm print that had sloppily replaced the "In Cinerama" card with a bad, manually spliced in "In 70mm" card in a different font while the wrong part of "The Blue Danube" played! I assume l*wy*rs were involved somehow, but I had seen it in 70mm once before and three times after and those prints hadn't been vandalized.

The actual photographic process is credited as "Super Panavision", which just means a 65mm negative with no anamorphic squeeze. The exact same process is credited as "Panavision 70" on "West Side Story" and "Super Panavision 70" in other places. It's functionally identical to Todd-AO. Prior single-strip Cinerama features were shot in "Ultra Panavision", which was a 65mm negative with a 1.25 anamorphic squeeze.

Unusually, the original 35mm prints were not cropped on the top and bottom to 2.35:1 but side-matted to retain the full original 2.20:1. I don't know if that technique was used in subequent print runs, but you can see an example here.

Yes, I'm a bit of an obsessive nerd about this movie...

Thank you for clarifying the "aspect ratios" and "In Cinerama." I saw this movie many times in 70mm in the "Dome Theaters" that existed all up and down in the East Bay Area from San Jose to Sacramento. The only Dome theaters in the Bay Area that exist now are the 4 in San Jose, only the original, to be possibly saved, and one in Sacramento. I heard the Sacramento one was to be demolished, do you know anything about it as of now? Is it still there?

I post this link to history for the Pleasant Hill Dome theater as anyone from the Bay Area knows about these: http://www.savethedome.org/History.html

They were built originally for Cinerama in the early-mid 1960s, (based upon the Cinerama Dome in L.A.) but the Cinerama format did not make it, I'm guessing 70mm taking it's place. There was supposedly a showing of the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World " in actual Cinerama at one of the original San Jose Dome theater's, but never any Cinerama in ours in Pleasant Hill, as far as we were able to find info. The screens in these theaters were unbelievably huge and tall. 2001 and 2010 were great to see there! Thanks.

 

[leevitalone1]

A blu ray I recently rented...Interstellar...is pretty good...I enjoyed it...with some more work Christopher Nolan could have hit it out of the park...but felt short of a home run...but certainly not from lack of effort...he thought big...and some parts are complex...sometimes too convoluted..not a big Matthew McConaughey fan...but he did good work on this film...it's more a movie for the avid sci fi fan...but if you haven't seen it...rent it on blu ray...I'm sure you will enjoy it...

I thought the parts I was able to stay awake for were good. Good effects and audio, but what a boring-sleepy story. And predictable in parts.

 

[atrocity]

Thank you for clarifying the "aspect ratios" and "In Cinerama." I saw this movie many times in 70mm in the "Dome Theaters" that existed all up and down in the East Bay Area from San Jose to Sacramento. The only Dome theaters in the Bay Area that exist now are the 4 in San Jose, only the original, to be possibly saved, and one in Sacramento. I heard the Sacramento one was to be demolished, do you know anything about it as of now? Is it still there?

I post this link to history for the Pleasant Hill Dome theater as anyone from the Bay Area knows about these: http://www.savethedome.org/History.html

They were built originally for Cinerama in the early-mid 1960s, (based upon the Cinerama Dome in L.A.) but the Cinerama format did not make it, I'm guessing 70mm taking it's place. There was supposedly a showing of the the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World " in actual Cinerama at one of the original San Jose Dome theater's, but never any Cinerama in ours, in Pleasant Hill, as far as we were able to find info. The screens in these theater were unbelievably huge. and tall. 2001 and 2010 were great to see there! Thanks.

The Dome theaters in Sacramento are the Century on Arden Way. They're "still there" in a sense, but what used to be two giant domes with giant screens got sliced up, shrunk and added on to decades ago. I had heard a while back that they were supposed to be demolished but I haven't followed the story. I've almost entirely given up on theatrical presentation around here...the last time I went to a theater was to see the first "Hobbit" movie. I was curious about the high frame rate and 3D. That worked, but there was a persistent hum in the audio the entire time. Consistent screwups like that are what make me want to give up.

"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was shot in single-strip Ultra Panavision for projection on Cinerama screens. The Dome in Hollywood was finished just in time to show it. As you hint, none of the Domes were equipped for "real" Cinerama (i.e., three projectors and separate audio playback) initially. After being spared the wrecking ball a few years back, the Hollywood Dome was set up for multiple projectors, though it doesn't have an official Cinerama screen--the curve isn't deep enough and it isn't made out of jillions of hanging vertical strips.

I took a trip down to Hollywood to visit the Dome when "Avatar" was new. It was weird walking into the place for the first time and immediately recognizing it as being identical to the way the Century used to be in Sacramento decades earlier.

I'm pretty sure the Pleasant Hill Dome is the one that ran "2001" off a Blu-ray as their final feature.

I turned 7 in 1966, which is when the Sacramento theaters opened. They were always expensive so I rarely got to go there. I don't remember ever hearing about 70mm as a kid, but from what I've heard over the years the theaters always had that capability. My memories of 70mm begin in late 1979 when "Alien" and the first "Star Trek" movie ran as blowups from 35mm. For the next decade or so it seemed like 70mm was everywhere but then it died practically overnight when the various digital audio formats made it possible to do discrete 5.1 without the expense of the bigger film.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

The Dome theaters in Sacramento are the Century on Arden Way. They're "still there" in a sense, but what used to be two giant domes with giant screens got sliced up, shrunk and added on to decades ago. I had heard a while back that they were supposed to be demolished but I haven't followed the story. I've almost entirely given up on theatrical presentation around here...the last time I went to a theater was to see the first "Hobbit" movie. I was curious about the high frame rate and 3D. That worked, but there was a persistent hum in the audio the entire time. Consistent screwups like that are what make me want to give up.

"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was shot in single-strip Ultra Panavision for projection on Cinerama screens. The Dome in Hollywood was finished just in time to show it. As you hint, none of the Domes were equipped for "real" Cinerama (i.e., three projectors and separate audio playback) initially. After being spared the wrecking ball a few years back, the Hollywood Dome was set up for multiple projectors, though it doesn't have an official Cinerama screen--the curve isn't deep enough and it isn't made out of jillions of hanging vertical strips.

I took a trip down to Hollywood to visit the Dome when "Avatar" was new. It was weird walking into the place for the first time and immediately recognizing it as being identical to the way the Century used to be in Sacramento decades earlier.

I'm pretty sure the Pleasant Hill Dome is the one that ran "2001" off a Blu-ray as their final feature.

I turned 7 in 1966, which is when the Sacramento theaters opened. They were always expensive so I rarely got to go there. I don't remember ever hearing about 70mm as a kid, but from what I've heard over the years the theaters always had that capability. My memories of 70mm begin in late 1979 when "Alien" and the first "Star Trek" movie ran as blowups from 35mm. For the next decade or so it seemed like 70mm was everywhere but then it died practically overnight when the various digital audio formats made it possible to do discrete 5.1 without the expense of the bigger film.

You guessed 100% on the money about Blu-Ray being shown at last showings, Digitally projected. It was AWFUL. The colors were muted, sound only "ok," sort of, and the sides of the movie were "truncated." More like seeing a 35mm version than the grand 70mm I recall. I was also lucky to see "The Sound of Music" with my mom, there back when the Theater first opened. I'm the same age as you, more or less. The Theater was the main thing to do here back then and it looked like a Space ship from the Freeway passing by on 680 at night. It originally had reserved seating, then by the early 70s people just sat where ever they wanted. Our Theater supposedly held 950 seats, to give folks an idea of scale, and yet was Very efficient. Not a bad seat in the house. And, the aisles for each row here were big enough that you didn't have to get out of your seat to let someone go by.

I too, have lost the fun of "going to the movies" sad to say. Turner Classic Films had a Cinerama revival at the L.A. Cinerama theater you went to, a few years back. Not sure if it was any good or not.

EDIT: Link: http://2013.filmfestival.tcm.com/venues/cinerama-dome.php