Lost footage of 2001: A Space Odyssey found (1 Viewer)

I didn't see mention of this in my search.


There's an article about lost footage found in pristine condition of lost footage from the Kubrick film. The article says it's likely footage Kubrick cut out right before release to improve the film's pace.


http://www.thewrap.com/deal-central/column-post/wb-uncovers-lost-footage-kubricks-2001-space-odyssey-23309


It would be interesting to see the footage someday on blu ray. But from the description of the scenes cut out, it doesn't sound like it would add anything to the narrative.

Douglas Trumbull announced at a screening in Toronto that the 17 minutes Stanley Kubrick cut from the premiere in NYC in May 1968 have been found in pristine condition in a salt mine in Kansas. The details are here:


http://www.thewrap.com/deal-central/column-post/wb-uncovers-lost-footage-kubricks-2001-space-odyssey-23309


I saw the longer version on a sixth-grade (or was it fifth-grade) class trip to the Capitol Theater in NYC. The experience had a profound impact on my childhood, I can tell you. I'm dying to see it again. Let's hope WB re-releases an extended version to theaters AND then on Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Let's hope WB re-releases an extended version to theaters AND then on Blu-ray.

Click to expand...

Since Kubrick himself cut the footage for pacing reasons (rather than, say, the studio mandating cuts for censorship purposes or to make the film more commercial), are you seriously suggesting Warner go against the artist's wishes and posthumously release an extended version?


I'm all for releasing the footage as a "deleted scenes" feature on the upcoming Blu-ray but I, for one, hope WB leaves the director's cut of 2001 alone.

The cut footage does add substantially to the narrative, I assure you.

I barely remember it, but there was an additional scene of one of the astronauts working out his anxiety over Hal by jogging through the centrifuge. Poole's spacewalk wasn't just longer, it was a carefully edited and sustained suspense sequence. Because it was longer, it was more "immersive." I've seen 2001 projected perhaps a hundred times since April 1968 at the Capitol Theater in NYC, and I would love to see it again with the missing 19 minutes reinstated. The article infers that the Kubrick family is against it, however, and against Douglas Trumbull's documentary. That is very unfortunate.


I can't believe there is so little interest on HTF in this major discovery.

When was the footage cut? I guess I would have seen it at the original Cinerama runs in Cleveland in May or June 1968, and in Detroit in June or July? Cleveland was definitely first, and I saw it there at least twice.


I've seen 2001 many times since, but unless I've had a major brain fart somewhere along the way, I don't recall ever noticing that anything went missing. And I'm one who remembers Spencer Tracy eating the ice cream.


Of course I'd want to have all of this as deleted scenes. And the documentary! Of course, of course. Bring it on!

I believe the cuts were made in early May 1968 while Kubrick was in NYC for the opening. The film opened at the Capitol Theater, a Cinerama screen, April 3 which is about the time my school bussed us downtown for an early morning screening, and it's trimmed by mid-May or early June. I made my parents take me back to see it in early May. By December it had moved on to other theaters, replaced by Ice Station Zebra. When we saw it again in December, everybody noticed the cuts.

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I can't believe there is so little interest on HTF in this major discovery.

Click to expand...

This is one of my top five all-time favorite films. And I am very interested in what has been written thus far in this thread. I would love to see this cut footage in one form or another. I don't really have anything too useful or informative to add to what has already been written.

I wouldn't say no to the alternate cut, especially since I'm not a huge fan of the film. I might like the longer one more. It's a shame that the Kubrick family is so fussy with his legacy, an independent documentary could be very interesting.

Interesting you actually saw the footage Richard. And you remember it enough that they added to the narrative.


I was just wondering if the cut footage actually added any information about the aliens or perhaps what happened to HAL for it to go nuts.


I do like the sequel 2010 very much, inspite of what others think. Sure, it's too straight forward and mainstream. But I see it as another filmmakers view. So I wondered if the ideas presented in that film mesh with the cut scenes. I'm sure they don't! For example, the reason HAL killed Poole and tried to kill Bowman were for reasons they cite in the sequel. Kubrick's view and Clarke's were not the same I imagine in 1964 as they started the project. So Clarke's ideas used in 2010 are his.


BTW, I did see 2001 in 1968. I remember fidgeting a lot. It wasn't till I got older that I started to appreciate it in the 70's. And I saw it recently in San Francisco on the big screen. The restored print. When I got the blu ray, I was amazed how close they looked!


Yes, it is strange there is so much resistance to the new footage being seen and the blocking of the documentary.


I too am surprised no one responded to this thread for so long! But it is the Holidays.

"I was just wondering if the cut footage actually added any information about the aliens or perhaps what happened to HAL for it to go nuts."


Nelson,


The book didn't explain this very well either. Thankfully, 2010 (the film) did provide us with some backstory on the 'why' with regard to HAL.

I'm all for releasing the footage as a "deleted scenes" feature on the upcoming Blu-ray

Click to expand...

What is this upcoming Blu-Ray that is being mentioned (I think the digital bits mentions it too) There's already plans for a double dip?

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

Interesting you actually saw the footage Richard. And you remember it enough that they added to the narrative.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I was nuts about the film. In fact, I was probably nuts about it before I saw it. Our school had received a two-sided fold-out four-color informational poster about 2001 in January or thereabouts when the 'field trip" downtown was planned. I stared at that poster every day on the bulletin board, turned it over and stared at it some more. It looked cooler than Star Trek. It was being marketed to public schools as an educational film, and we all paid for tickets (an outrageous $2.75 plus .25 for the bus driver) three months in advance. Schools bussed kids in all the way from New Jersey, Connecticut, and Long Island for early morning screenings. It was a topic for discussion in every class, what the movie was about and what it meant. My teachers obsessed over it, and they were grown ups. My father brought home a Popular Science magazine with an article about it. I cut all the display ads and articles out of the newspapers, and I saved the reviews. The New York papers were full of articles about the film and discussions over its controversialness. I made my parents take me back to the Capitol to see it again. Later they went back to see it on their own before it left the Capitol. They liked it up until the ending. I hunted for the book I'd heard was coming out, but it would not be published for some six months, so I read everything I could get my hands on by Arthur C. Clark until his paperback of 2001 was published. The movie had a profound impact on my childhood.

I was just wondering if the cut footage actually added any information about the aliens or perhaps what happened to HAL for it to go nuts.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think the cut footage would help with either question.

It does prolong and sustain the suspense of what Hal will do next, however.


Come to think of it, I believe the cuts were reported in the New York papers at the time. Either I locate my 2001 scrapbook in storage somewhere or I access the microfilms at the public library to find out.


My enthusiasm for 2001 has not abated one iota since 1968.


2010 was a crushing disappointment.

Casting man-of-action Roy Scheider as bureaucrat Dr. Heywood Floyd was like stabbing 2001 in the back.

Painting man-sized numbers on the doors of Discovery indicates somebody doesn't know what he's doing and should probably withdraw from the project.

But the novel 2010 didn't amount to much, either.

The missing ingredient was Stanley Kubrick.

Oh my god, now I remember seeing the Ice Station Zebra previews during the run of 2001, and a sense of regret that anything was going to take its place. Never have seen that film, though.

Didn't Kubrick swear he never kept unused footage of any of his films, that he destroyed anything he cut out? I'd love to see this footage restored to the film some day. A Kubrick film can never be too long.

If Kubrick had kept this unused footage, we'd probably have seen it long ago!

I did a little more digging and found another website on the cut footage and this site has a trailer for the Trumbull documentary. The article has a link to a fuller article about the footage here: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown3.html


http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/8644/lost-stanley-kubrick-edited-footage-for-2001-a-space-odyssey-found

Tantalizing. Mouth-watering.

Man, that trailer... why in the world would the Kubrick estate cancel another 2001 documentary? Ugh.


Anyway, as incidental as that footage is, it's still worthy of public viewing.

I believe the cuts were made in early May 1968 while Kubrick was in NYC for the opening.

Click to expand...

According to the 1970 book "The Making of 2001" edited by Jerome Agel,


Nineteen minutes were trimmed from the original print. Sequences trimmed were Dawn of Man, Orion, Poole exercising in the centrifuge, and Poole's pod exiting from Discovery. Trimming commenced at four P.M. on April 5, 1968, and the first session did not end until seven a.m. the next day. Work continued at this pace until the trim was completed three days later.


Kubrick has talked on three different occasions about the cuts:

1. "200aq was not the first picture I have tightened after a couple of previews. Doctor Strangelove lost an entire pie-throwing sequence at the end because it seemed excessive, and Paths of Glory was trimmed between preview and release."


2. "I made all the cuts in 2001 and at no one's request. I had not had an opportunity to see the film complete with music, sound effects, etc., until about a week before it opened, and it does take a few runnings to decide finally how long things should be, especially scenes which do not have narrative advancement as their guideline. Most of the scenes that were cut were impressions of things and could have been anywhere from four times shorter than they were - or four times longer, depending on how you felt about it."


3. "I just felt as I looked at it and looked at it that I could see places all the way through where I could tighten up, and I took out 19 minutes. I don't believe that the trims made a crucial difference. I think it just affected some marginal people. The people who like it, like it no matter what its length, and the same holds true for the people who hate it."

I'd love to see the new footage and hope it makes its way to us in some form before too much time passes. That being said, since the existing cut of 2001 is the film that Kubrick was satisfied with and the cut he wanted us to see, I'm perfectly OK with it as it exists.