2001: A Space Odyssey (4k UHD) Available for Preorder

3 Stars

FB_IMG_1519785963288.jpg

Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

377 Comments

  1. Jeff F.

    $41.99? I love this film, but that's way too pricey. Prices need to come down on 4K titles in order to entice more to join the format.

    This is MSRP. The street price will be between $20 and $30 by release day.

  2. Sam Posten

    Pre-ordered but this is TERRIBLE artwork compared to the iconic HAL one that it seems the UK is getting =/

    Funny as I feel the total opposite. However, so long as we get top notch PQ quality I am fine with any cover.

  3. dpippel

    This is MSRP. The street price will be between $20 and $30 by release day.

    Since it's Warner Brothers, it will probably be a little over $30 and will stay around that price for quite awhile. That was their pattern with Blade Runner and Unforgiven in UHD.

  4. Jeff F.

    $41.99? I love this film, but that's way too pricey. Prices need to come down on 4K titles in order to entice more to join the format.

    I agree; but, with no information from my end; this price could also be an indicator of a rolled out red carpet on both the transfer and much, much more. So, let's wait and see, as I'm thinking that something great just might be ahead.

  5. Just got an email from Amazon with a release date:

    We now have delivery date(s) for the order you placed on February 27, 2018 (Order# 114-3650159-3414669):

    "2001: A Space Odyssey (UHD/BD) (4K Ultra HD) [Blu-ray]"
    Estimated arrival date: May 08, 2018

  6. Unfortunately I got a notice today from Amazon where they said there was no set release date. Only a few weeks ago I got a notice indicating that I would have the disc by mid May. Wonder if there is going to be a delay?

  7. Jim*Tod

    Unfortunately I got a notice today from Amazon where they said there was no set release date. Only a few weeks ago I got a notice indicating that I would have the disc by mid May. Wonder if there is going to be a delay?

    I had the same thing happen to me.

  8. TravisR

    A movie prop replica company called Master Replicas is doing HAL too.

    Yeah, mine's from the same guy. The one I have is what he was making five years ago and the new one is what he is doing now. I'm very curious as to the price.

    —————

  9. I have seen on Film Tech that the 70mm print of Ready Player One has a trailer of 2001 attached.
    No 70mm prints in the UK.:angry:

    So if this is getting a new 70mm release and this is from the 65mm neg and the 4KUHD is from that as well
    we will all be very happy.:)

  10. From that article:

    "According to Cannes, for the first time since the original film’s release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative meaning it’s a true photochemical film recreation."

    I'm pretty sure the 70mm print (prints?) that were struck in 2001 were new prints. Perhaps they came from vintage IPs, but the print wasn't faded and was in great condition. I saw it projected at the Loews Astor Plaza in NYC and it looked gorgeous on their huge screen, even though the theater stupidly removed the intermission.

    Vincent

  11. "Nolan said, “One of my earliest memories of cinema is seeing Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, in 70mm, at the Leicester Square Theatre in London with my father. The opportunity to be involved in recreating that experience for a new generation, and of introducing our new unrestored 70mm print of Kubrick’s masterpiece in all its analogue glory at the Festival de Cannes is an honour and a privilege.

    What a bizarre statement (the unrestored comment). I wonder if this is a sloppy translation of a French-language press release? I imagine what Nolan is actually referring to is the lack of "updated" special effects, and he isn't actually touting a complete lack of restoration as being a good thing?

    Vincent

  12. Yeah, I'm sure there's a mistake or two there. I understand that the originals are not in a great state. If there's an interpos/interneg floating around, they must be a few years old. I'd think it's more likely that a print has been made from the new scan & restoration made by Warner. Whatever, I won't be going to Cannes to see it, but I'm very much looking forward to reading some reviews of the new Blu-ray

  13. Vincent_P

    I'm pretty sure the 70mm print (prints?) that were struck in 2001 were new prints. Perhaps they came from vintage IPs, but the print wasn't faded and was in great condition. I saw it projected at the Loews Astor Plaza in NYC and it looked gorgeous on their huge screen, even though the theater stupidly removed the intermission.

    Likewise, that was a great presentation.

    I think Warner made two prints back for the 2001-2002 domestic re-release. Because many of the venues it played at no longer had 70mm capability, Warner supplied not only the film print but also the 70mm projector to theaters that needed it. If memory serves, there were two new prints struck for that run, and they'd leapfrog from city to city during the revival. (It was scheduled more like a band going on tour, rather than a standard movie release, in that it didn't play simultaneously across the country.) I remember seeing the NYC showing, and then seeing it again in Boston about a month later. The prints looked slightly different, so I presume I saw both of the new prints.

    The Museum Of The Moving Image in Astoria shows 2001 every summer in 70mm — I think they're showing one of the two prints from the 2001-2002 reissue. It's generally in good shape, but has picked up some scratches along the way. They have been showing the same print from year to year, because I recognize the scratching happening in the exact same place. (If you happen to see that print, look out for the green lines appearing during the scene where Bowman is in the pod, arguing with HAL about opening the doors.)

    It would be great if the Nolan presentation was filmed for inclusion in an upcoming disc-based re-release. I am sincerely hoping that the new remaster is presented on regular Blu-ray in addition to UHD. While I will undoubtedly buy it in UHD one day, right now I am still just in HD, and have no plans to upgrade in the foreseeable future – but I'd love to retire the current (underwhelming) Blu-ray.

  14. From Deadline.

    According to Cannes, for the first time since the original film’s release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative meaning it’s a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. Nolan worked closely with Warner Bros. throughout the mastering process. The film will also return to U.S. theaters in 70mm beginning May 18, 2018.

  15. Tino

    From Deadline.

    According to Cannes, for the first time since the original film’s release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative meaning it’s a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. Nolan worked closely with Warner Bros. throughout the mastering process. The film will also return to U.S. theaters in 70mm beginning May 18, 2018.

    What is a "new printing element"? Thank you.

  16. And there was an interesting feature in the Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair, which I just read.

    I wasn't aware of the extremely complex nature of filming the special effects, to avoid composite shots:

    "One overriding difficulty was that Kubrick insisted there be no second- or third-generation degradation of the film image when shots were composited; thus every element of a given scene—a spaceship, say, plus a star field, and maybe a planet or actor or both—had to be shot on the same film negative, with separate passes through the camera sometimes coming more than a year apart. More complex shots might have 7, 8, even 10 elements. If a new pass was wonky—if stars showed through the edge of a spaceship—the negative would be scrapped and the entire sequence begun over. As Kubrick wrote Clarke, “We are getting magnificent shots, but everything is like a 106-move chess game with two adjournments.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo…scenes-of-2001-a-space-odyssey-50-years-later

  17. Robert Harris

    Unfortunately, some of that footage no longer survives, and is represented by dupes from b/w masters.

    So these parts of the original negative were worn out so much they were cut and dupes put into the negative? And then the cut pieces were not archived but thrown into the garbage? And this kind of thing was done without aksing or informing Kubrick, behind his back?

  18. Michel_Hafner

    So these parts of the original negative were worn out so much they were cut and dupes put into the negative? And then the cut pieces were not archived but thrown into the garbage? And this kind of thing was done without aksing or informing Kubrick, behind his back?

    I'd think decisions like this would have been made at a really low level. A shot is too damaged to go through a printing machine, so the film lab get in touch with MGM who organize a dupe (or maybe all that's done & decided at the lab), & who wants the damaged shot that's been cut out? No one. And it doesn't help that nearly all the film labs have been closed down now, along with all the vast film vaults. And who wants to get Kubrick involved? I wouldn't. He's moved on, now making films exclusively for Warner.

  19. Billy Batson

    I'd think decisions like this would have been made at a really low level. A shot is too damaged to go through a printing machine, so the film lab get in touch with MGM who organize a dupe (or maybe all that's done & decided at the lab), & who wants the damaged shot that's been cut out? No one. And it doesn't help that nearly all the film labs have been closed down now, along with all the vast film vaults. And who wants to get Kubrick involved? I wouldn't. He's moved on, now making films exclusively for Warner.

    I understand the rationale but in hindsight it's stupid like many other things that were done back then, like tossing all nitrates after copying to "safety". Lack of imagination about what use/worth films could have some decades from then and how technology could progress and make the unthinkable doable.

  20. Yup, & we don't learn. I'm sure it's still happening today with lots of things. The long view is a long ways off, & there's budgets & short term considerations. In fifty years time people will be outraged at what we threw away & pulled down (& then there's the rainforest).

  21. Please keep something in mind when it came to inserting dupes.

    If a lab had an order for 20 70mm prints, they would be struck on optical printers. Probably 2-3 prints per week.

    If there was a tear — I generally received a call from the lab at around 7AM, informing me as to what shots in Lawrence had torn the night before — one had to immediately go to the masters, or shut down printing.

    This was standard lab procedure.

    When a large order was being produced, generally the masters stood by somewhere accessible.

  22. I really wasn't that bothered about this release, I saw it three or four times on the big screen at the Casino Cinerama, London back in 1968, but thought I might find it a bit slow now. Now reading all this stuff online has enthused me, I can't wait to read the reports/reviews on the Blu-ray (especially from Mr Harris). I bought the Taschen book about the making of the film a couple of months ago, only £12 on Amazon UK, it's over £36 now (Amazon must have been clearing out their warehouse).

  23. If the colors in the trailer are indicative of what's in the Bluray (or UHD if you will), I think I'll stick to my current Bluray.
    I already have enough teal and yellow blurays in my collection.

    (reference comparison from bluray.com)
    top: old bluray
    bottom: new trailer of restored film

    [​IMG]

  24. Konstantinos

    If the colors in the trailer are indicative of what's in the Bluray (or UHD if you will), I think I'll stick to my current Bluray.
    I already have enough teal and yellow blurays in my collection.

    Ha, exactly my thoughts on seeing the trailer, & those caps are very damming.

  25. Yet more wreckstoration. Yuk. Every other new release of a vintage film is coming out like this now. I hope this, along with music's loudness wars, is just an extended fad. Perhaps one day this period of madness will be looked back on as a pointless marketing craze, like 1980s-style colorization or "Electronically Reprocessed Stereo" and "Duophonic" recordings of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Regardless, cue the usual confirmation bias-ridden posters who will swear blind 2001 was aways meant to be thoroughly tealed and you can't judge its original colour palette based on years of mistimed home video video releases, blah, blah, blah…

  26. I don't think a quick scan of a newly made trailer released to YouTube should be taken as representative of either the new 70mm prints (created in the analogue realm) or the upcoming UHD release (for which the transfer source hasn't been announced, and may not even have been done yet).

    Also, for what it's worth, the current Blu-ray should not be used as the absolute final word on what the film is supposed to look like. Some of us, myself included, dislike the Blu-ray because it's not at all representative of the 70mm prints.

  27. Since they closed the Ziegfeld several years ago I can't think of a decent sized theater in NYC that could take advange of a 70MM print . Ah for the days before the Rivoli theater was first twined and then torn down.

  28. Josh Steinberg

    I don't think a quick scan of a newly made trailer released to YouTube should be taken as representative of either the new 70mm prints (created in the analogue realm) or the upcoming UHD release (for which the transfer source hasn't been announced, and may not even have been done yet).

    I agree, it's just a trailer, but if the new Blu-ray does look like that flat greeny mess, then there's going to be online fireworks, & I'll save myself a few bob by not buying it.

    …& thinking about it, it is only a trailer, but why not get the colour right for it?

  29. Garysb

    Since they closed the Ziegfeld several years ago I can't think of a decent sized theater in NYC that could take advange of a 70MM print . Ah for the days before the Rivoli theater was first twined and then torn down.

    They could book it into the IMAX screen at Loew's (now AMC) Lincoln Square.

  30. Brent Reid

    Yet more wreckstoration. Yuk. Every other new release of a vintage film is coming out like this now. I hope this, along with music's loudness wars, is just an extended fad. Perhaps one day this period of madness will be looked back on as a pointless marketing craze, like 1980s-style colorization or "Electronically Reprocessed Stereo" and "Duophonic" recordings of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Regardless, cue the usual confirmation bias-ridden posters who will swear blind 2001 was aways meant to be thoroughly tealed and you can't judge its original colour palette based on years of mistimed home video video releases, blah, blah, blah…

    The problem is, Hollywood's adoration of teal and orange has been going on for over a decade, and shows no signs of abating. What an annoyance. The fear is that this is what we'll be stuck with, since it seems unlikely that there will be a subsequent corrected version. This was the title that had me finally seriously considering getting a UHD player, and these screenshots have thrown cold water on it.

  31. Patrick McCart

    I don't get why anyone is getting worked up about the UHD since it's really obvious the trailer uses footage from the existing HD master with color tweaking added.

    It's legitimate to be worried, because it seems there's a real possibility that the colors will be mucked with for the UHD release.

  32. Probably right. I cannot imagine the Kubrick estate, which has been very exacting in the past, would allow anything less than a perfect presentation of the film. Still waiting to see just what venues are going to show this.

  33. Edwin-S

    First. It is a trailer. Second. It is on YouTube. Hardly, the medium for accurate film representation. Thirdly. The trailer is being seen on mostly uncalibrated computer monitors.

    Big differences can be seen in post #54 on "uncalibrated computer monitors".

  34. Edwin-S

    First. It is a trailer. Second. It is on YouTube. Hardly, the medium for accurate film representation. Thirdly. The trailer is being seen on mostly uncalibrated computer monitors.

    Can you give me an example of a trailer of a restored film where the subsequent Bluray had significantly altered colors?
    I can't think of any right now.
    What I see in these trailers I see in the blurays themselves.

    Anyway, we'll be here (hopefully) in a few months where the blurays will be released and we'll see if it was representative or not.

  35. Konstantinos

    Can you give me an example of a trailer of a restored film where the subsequent Bluray had significantly altered colors?
    I can't think of any right now.
    What I see in these trailers I see in the blurays themselves.

    Anyway, we'll be here (hopefully) in a few months where the blurays will be released and we'll see if it was representative or not.

    Videa's first trailer for TLE's 4K restoration of SUSPIRIA used an earlier HD video master.

    Vincent

  36. WHITE TERROR – meaning the fear of a white balance. For anyone who doesn't know, and respecting the level of technical knowledge on this forum, a white balance is when a cameraman presses the white balance button on the camera whilst it's looking at a white card. Any colour cast anomalies created by the location and lighting are cancelled out and white is seen as pure white.

    Colour manipulation is easily achieved by using a warmer or colder card so that the camera compensates.

    My impression is that the development over the last quite a few years of highly colourful but highly manipulated, non-realistic colour in television was caused by creating the new post of POST PRODUCTION COLOUR GRADER/CONTROLLER. The objective became not realism but artistic colour changes.

    That in itself merely copies what has always happened in film and tv – highly detailed colour grading in order to match shots and create a perticular look.

    But readers of this forum know that it frequently goes much too far and results in people asking why a production now has a green, yellow, blue or golden cast.

    Is it a case of misuse of facilities? This will remain controversial but looking at comparisons a few posts further back I'll add my opinion that the current look of 2001, judging from the trailer, exhibits profound WHITE TERROR. A particular cast is administered rather than have any pure white in the picture.

    A most honourable recent exception is MY FAIR LADY. The Ascot scenes are as gloriously white as intended.

    I've seen 2001 many times and always in 70mm and can endorse that its white balance was perfect. I believe that we're constantly seeing the products of immature people who can't resist fiddling to prove how clever they are at playing with the colour temperature.

  37. Malcolm Bmoor

    A most honourable recent exception is MY FAIR LADY. The Ascot scenes are as gloriously white as intended.

    And Spartacus too. Pure blues, pure whites.
    No teals, no yellows!
    Well, this is the outcome of competent and humble (respecting the original films) people.

    Another recent example of color manipulation in the usual color palette (teal) (although not radical – and not in all scenes as it seems – like the Eclair/Ritrovata companies) is found in the recent Criterion of Midnight Cowboy which comes from a new 4K scan.
    Without even comparing with the old release, when i saw that shirt in the Criterion release, it immediately looked unnatural and aligned with the current trends.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

  38. Well I was a colour grader/timer in a film lab for 20 years, only 16mm, industrial & TV, & there was only so much I could do. I only had red green & blue (yellow, magenta & cyan at Techicolor, but the same thing really) & I could make it lighter or darker. And then on to telecine, wow, much more, change the contrast, turn the colour down, change the hue on any individual colour, & SO much more, which is why you now get some weird & wonderful looks on some films & TV programs, & when done well & tastefully it really works a treat. When it comes to older films I have this old fashion view that I want greys to look grey (neutral) & not blue or green, & whites (a lot of the time) should look white, & colours not mucked about with.

  39. Konstantinos

    And Spartacus too. Pure blues, pure whites.
    No teals, no yellows!
    Well, this is the outcome of competent and humble (respecting the original films) people.

    Another recent example of color manipulation in the usual color palette (teal) (although not radical – and not in all scenes as it seems – like the Eclair/Ritrovata companies) is found in the recent Criterion of Midnight Cowboy which comes from a new 4K scan.
    Without even comparing with the old release, when i saw that shirt in the Criterion release, it immediately looked unnatural and aligned with the current trends.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    This is why some of us are so worried about 2001. We know that there is a very heavy predisposition in Hollywood to make these kind of color changes to older films, and we SEE the changes in the trailer. The only basis given so far for saying there's no reason to worry is an assumption that "they wouldn't dare" do it to the film itself.

  40. Robert Harris

    I’d not pre-order. Wait for reviews!

    Uh-Oh. Not getting the warm and fuzzies here.

    I wouldn't want to speak for you, but my gut tells me there's something about this upcoming release that's going to prove to be very controversial.

  41. WillG

    Uh-Oh. Not getting the warm and fuzzies here.

    I wouldn't want to speak for you, but my gut tells me there's something about this upcoming release that's going to prove to be very controversial.

    FILE UNDER: Take heed or take Keir.

  42. I would tend to heed Mr. Harris. Interesting that there is now new packaging though what was put up earlier may have just been a temp thing. Seeing it in 70mm on July 7th at AFI Silver.

  43. Robert Harris

    Let’s be clear.

    I’m not suggesting a problem, but with what’s occurred thus far, the release needs to be viewed before any presumptions of quality might be made.

    As said, I didn’t want to speak for you, but I know you’re a guy “in the know” so you defiantly bump the needle so to speak.

  44. Johnny Angell

    They want $42 before shipping. I’ll wait.

    Robert Harris

    I’d not pre-order. Wait for reviews!

    Osato

    Carry on…in October

    OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love…the first day of summer.:)

  45. Things are getting more distressingly interesting. WB’s press release today seems to be conflating the Nolan analogue, with the digital restoration, while they have nothing visually in common.

    The verbiage speaks of one building upon the other.

    More red flags.

  46. Robert Harris

    Things are getting more distressingly interesting. WB’s press release today seems to be conflating the Nolan analogue, with the digital restoration, while they have nothing visually in common.

    The verbiage speaks of one building upon the other.

    More red flags.

    Any chance if you have any contact still with any of the great collaborators at Wb. do you think they would let you see the finished transfer?

    It would just be nice to know are the whites white and has any other color been altered?

    it would be nice just to calm the masses including myself. 2001 is my favorite film of all time right ahead of Lawrence of Arabia so if the 4K doesnt come out looking like it should its just going to be a great disappointment and something that would take years and years for a chance of a re-issue with an all new transfer.

    I hate to say it but if Nolan’s input in any way harms the look of the film for disc Im never seeing or buying another film he is invloved with ever again. Id prob trash the ones I own! Not kidding he can do what he wants with his films fine, but 2001 is NOT his movie.

    Would also be great to confirm info regarding the two 5.1 dts HD MA audio tracks are they 24bit? Thats at least better than the 16bit PCM of the Former BLU but it would have been cool to get a 96K on both tracks. WB i think only did one previous 96K audio with The Right Stuff.

    Really wish an Atmos track was made though, it could have been used moderatly and tastfully as object based.

  47. View attachment 47125

    The price link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfronsposts-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07B12HNJW&asins=B07B12HNJW&linkId=18083d9a3b49974a8a6ac5902a1f7f67&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

  48. Robert Harris

    Things are getting more distressingly interesting. WB’s press release today seems to be conflating the Nolan analogue, with the digital restoration, while they have nothing visually in common.

    The verbiage speaks of one building upon the other.

    More red flags.

    I agree the haphazard and uncoordinated release of info regarding the roadshow and the UHD has thrown all kinds of red flags.

    But the press release does have this statement (emphasis mine):

    "Building on the work done for the new 70mm prints, the 4K UHD with HDR presentation was mastered from the 65mm original camera negative. "

    Immediately before this, the press release mentions the 70mm release that was printed from an element based on the OCN, so they are definitely differentiating the two, from how I read it.

    Is there something I am missing?

  49. YanMan

    I agree the haphazard and uncoordinated release of info regarding the roadshow and the UHD has thrown all kinds of red flags.

    But the press release does have this statement (emphasis mine):

    "Building on the work done for the new 70mm prints, the 4K UHD with HDR presentation was mastered from the 65mm original camera negative. "

    Immediately before this, the press release mentions the 70mm release that was printed from an element based on the OCN, so they are definitely differentiating the two, from how I read it.

    Is there something I am missing?

    You are.

    Every film and video ever created, have all been based upon “the OCN.”

    For the record, the new 4k, will be partially, or substantively mastered from the 65mm original camera negative. Not entirely.

    Possibly just a poorly written, or misinformed press release.

    But there are people at the studio who should know better.

    With all of the previous smoke and mirrors, transparency here is essential.

    There is still the possibility of producing a perfect 4k release.

    At this point, I don’t see it as being probable.

    We’ll call it “the Nolan factor.”

    And if that’s accurate, then it’s still correctable.

  50. Jim*Tod

    It does say the blu ray is remastered, which is somewhat good news depending on how all this comes out.

    It 's all fantastic news. After all the color timing / Nolan BS the past few months, I hope we don't rehash it all summer.

  51. I have it preordered but given Mr Harris’s word of possible caution I will monitor reviews before final final decision 😉 Should have been a slam dunk. Also not one for box of junk would love to have had high quality HAL 900 facial plate or something. Not that Halmark thingy:)

    Regards,

  52. ArnoldLayne

    After all the color timing / Nolan BS the past few months, I hope we don't rehash it all summer.

    I agree, this is one of if the most anticipated title of all time for me. I keep thinking to myself why do I feel this way and I believe that it is the attention to detail Kubrick paid in this film. Reading all the books written about it just makes watching it all the more interesting.

    [​IMG]

    Look at the number of 16mm projectors running in this image to make the displays look like flat panels that were science fiction at the time.

  53. Powell&Pressburger

    The retail price for 4Ks are always pretty high. The pre-order price will drop.

    I've got over 100 UHDs. I don't mind paying market rate. But WB has been way behind the curve when it comes to making reasonable price adjustments down as the format goes more mainstream.

    I'll get it when it hits $20ish.

  54. Robert Harris

    Let’s be clear.

    I’m not suggesting a problem, but with what’s occurred thus far, the release needs to be viewed before any presumptions of quality might be made.

    I saw nothing wrong with the Nolan theatrical print other than it wasn't restored (print damage, elevated black levels). I have no reason to believe that the UHD will be other than perfect. As we have discussed, Warner has plenty of expertise to produce an awesome disc and I can't imagine it won't put the current champion, a 13mb/s VC-1 transfer, to shame…

  55. "We will serve no wine before it's time" – Orson Welles

    If the powers that be are aware of any potential shortcomings; and they have the abilities, advisers and technical resources all at their finger tips both In-House and Out; then why would all involved at WB not want to see things right?

    Let's never mind the release date. Let's get past any invested marketing pressures of its release being all about a 50th Anniversary.
    If need be, I would rather wait until 2019 for its release, in order to have the work done right; with an end result of something special, if not spectacular.

    Lessons were learned from the first and second BD of "My Fair Lady"; or so one continues to hope. The evidence on how to do things correctly was revealed in its second incarnation. As a reminder, "My Fair Lady" was a breath away from its 50th anniversary BD release and suddenly pulled for a good many months. Frustrating? No doubt. As it was, I drove to a Barnes and Noble a good 40 minutes away from my house to be there on a Tuesday morning, upon the opening of their doors. This was the only BD release to which I had ever done this for; and I was awaiting that day for a good few months. I will pat myself on the back; to which I also have witnesses; as I had concluded and stated that this mysterious delay must have happened for very good and special reasons. And I gloat right here on this forum, as I had surmised that maybe someone involved had located the 6-track elements; and later found myself to be right. Bottom line, whatever the overall reasons for the delays; as they may have been other factors beyond unearthing the original sound design; it was well worth the wait. And the benefits of this wait still remains as one of the greatest and most lasting restorative joys to date.

    I'm no insider, I'm not in the fray of decision making and I have zero influence. Nonetheless, if for some crazy reason my post – or any of the other posts written by our members – are collectively being heard, then I would ask that WB dispense with the Anniversary time-lines and simply take from those cues of prior successes. Little doubt that whatever monies are to be made and had for the upcoming 4K release of "2001" could only increase, if the word on the street and on the internet reviews were to report perfections; rather than controversy. With an Ultra-Classic like "2001" the future of 4K and the reputation of product output from WB rests not on the meeting of an announced "anniversary" release date but, rather, on stepping back and really thinking about all that is possible and all that is at hand.

  56. Powell&Pressburger

    I hate to say it but if Nolan’s input in any way harms the look of the film for disc Im never seeing or buying another film he is invloved with ever again. Id prob trash the ones I own! Not kidding he can do what he wants with his films fine, but 2001 is NOT his movie.

    I think I feel the same way. Nolan is pretty much my favorite working filmmaker at the moment, but if it comes to light that the UHD release is less than what it could be because of his input, then that will leave a really bad taste in my mouth. 2001 is not my personal favorite film, but I do consider it the greatest film ever made; and if any film deserves to have a perfect 4K restoration, this is the one.

  57. YanMan

    I think I feel the same way. Nolan is pretty much my favorite working filmmaker at the moment, but if it comes to light that the UHD release is less than what it could be because of his input, then that will leave a really bad taste in my mouth. 2001 is not my personal favorite film, but I do consider it the greatest film ever made; and if any film deserves to have a perfect 4K restoration, this is the one.

    Yup, Nolan remains the talk. And I have no clues as to what is true and what is not, concerning this upcoming 4K. Yet, if Mr. Nolan is somehow involved in less than flattering ways, then someone may want to remind him that – in the end – this is not his film. This film belongs to Stanley Kubrick; and any work conducted on "2001" should avoid becoming a future case-study of eyes wide shut.

  58. I'm kind of puzzled by all the hand wringing over this. The 70mm release was a nice opportunity to see 2001 on film, quite possibly for the last time. Nothing was changed or altered for it, and it was at minimum a small improvement over previous prints that I've seen, some of which already looked very good. And while there was some minor damage, the presentation was labelled as being "unrestored".

    There's nothing to suggest that this new, actually "restored", version will be anything less than excellent. Warner pretty much has a spotless record and while Nolan may be an analogue fetishist, the digital versions of his own films look terrific. I mean, honestly, what's the actual concern here? That he's going to insist they leave the scratches in?

  59. trajan007

    Mr Harris is probably seating in his home theater right now watching the 4K right now with a big smile on his face.

    Brilliant.:thumbs-up-smiley:

    Love it.:)
    The best thought yet.:drum:

  60. Don’t forget there are quite a few of us who have been lucky enough to see the theatrical 4K. And I think I’m right in saying that most if not all that have seen it are very happy with the colour palette. There is no teal, except where one would imagine the director wanted it. As long as the DCP, upon which I would imagine the UHD would have much in common, hasn’t been tinkered with. Honestly, it looked like it had been made recently, and not by CN.

  61. I'd like to hear what Robert Harris thinks of the 70mm theatrical re-release, all the issues I've highlighted are confirmed by various friends who have seen the film theatrically in different parts of the world (me in Australia, Germany, USA all in 70mm), so unless there's different 'Nolan' prints being shown around to the people giving this a 'pass' it's a rather poor anniversary re-release. The new 4K blu-ray might be OK as, someone else noted on this forum, it'll use a digitally restored master, but this new theatrical presentation is definitely botched. A friend in Germany that works in a film lab puts the flaws down to poor lab work from Nolan's company…

  62. Italo

    I'd like to hear what Robert Harris thinks of the 70mm theatrical re-release, all the issues I've highlighted are confirmed by various friends who have seen the film theatrically in different parts of the world (me in Australia, Germany, USA all in 70mm), so unless there's different 'Nolan' prints being shown around to the people giving this a 'pass' it's a rather poor anniversary re-release. The new 4K blu-ray might be OK as, someone else noted on this forum, it'll use a digitally restored master, but this new theatrical presentation is definitely botched. A friend in Germany that works in a film lab puts the flaws down to poor lab work from Nolan's company…

    I think the theatrical print has already been subject to all sorts of analysis. None definitive. e.g., you claimed crushed blacks, I saw elevated black level.
    There's really nothing left to do but celebrate…

  63. Italo

    I'd like to hear what Robert Harris thinks of the 70mm theatrical re-release, all the issues I've highlighted are confirmed by various friends who have seen the film theatrically in different parts of the world (me in Australia, Germany, USA all in 70mm), so unless there's different 'Nolan' prints being shown around to the people giving this a 'pass' it's a rather poor anniversary re-release. The new 4K blu-ray might be OK as, someone else noted on this forum, it'll use a digitally restored master, but this new theatrical presentation is definitely botched. A friend in Germany that works in a film lab puts the flaws down to poor lab work from Nolan's company…

    My 70 MM screening definitely was not botched. It was spectacular. Zero issues.

  64. While the unrestored 70mm was a great experience, I still don’t understand the reasoning behind it. By definition there were some issues with the print, though not nearly as many as I feared. It’s just that there was a fully restored drop dead gorgeous version sitting on the shelf ready to blow us all away, which I saw a couple of weeks later, arebeit on a much smaller screen. The unrestored just looked faded compared to the 4K, which, given its age is exactly what we should expect. Still seems a very strange decision by CN/WB. Why wouldn’t you want to show a film, and this one above all others,in the best possible light?

  65. Mellotronmaniac

    While the unrestored 70mm was a great experience, I still don’t understand the reasoning behind it. By definition there were some issues with the print, though not nearly as many as I feared. It’s just that there was a fully restored drop dead gorgeous version sitting on the shelf ready to blow us all away, which I saw a couple of weeks later, arebeit on a much smaller screen. The unrestored just looked faded compared to the 4K, which, given its age is exactly what we should expect. Still seems a very strange decision by CN/WB. Why wouldn’t you want to show a film, and this one above all others,in the best possible light?

    Google it, there are many articles where Nolan explains his motivations.

  66. Mellotronmaniac

    Don’t forget there are quite a few of us who have been lucky enough to see the theatrical 4K. And I think I’m right in saying that most if not all that have seen it are very happy with the colour palette. There is no teal, except where one would imagine the director wanted it. As long as the DCP, upon which I would imagine the UHD would have much in common, hasn’t been tinkered with. Honestly, it looked like it had been made recently, and not by CN.

    Mellotronmaniac

    While the unrestored 70mm was a great experience, I still don’t understand the reasoning behind it. By definition there were some issues with the print, though not nearly as many as I feared. It’s just that there was a fully restored drop dead gorgeous version sitting on the shelf ready to blow us all away, which I saw a couple of weeks later, arebeit on a much smaller screen. The unrestored just looked faded compared to the 4K, which, given its age is exactly what we should expect. Still seems a very strange decision by CN/WB. Why wouldn’t you want to show a film, and this one above all others,in the best possible light?

    I agree with these comments and am happy that the DCP looked good
    I've seen neither but have seen it in 70mm at the music box a few years ago. It looked warmer than the Blu Ray but still wonderful. As others have also stated why put out for viewing something that has flaws when better is right there ? Nolan's comments regarding his thoughts for presenting the film as such don't make any sense to me personally. Like wearing a worn out suit to a formal when you have a new one on the rack.

  67. Robert Harris

    For the record, No.

    I know that Kaleidescape has had several older films a few weeks before the Blu Ray release, I can hope this will be the case. The UHD Lawrence of Arabia they have had for what will be closer to two years ahead.

    To bad that they pipe dream of you seeing it already is only that.

  68. I'm hopeful for a spectacular release! My only real disappointment is the lack of new extras. I'm hoping that someone, someday, produces the ultimate making-of documentary. This movie certainly deserves it! In the meantime, I'll be checking out the 70mm release in Minneapolis next weekend. It's one of the few movies I'd drive 6 hours to see!

  69. Is there anyone who can get to the bottom of what is going on with this release? Alot of talk is happening and alot of red flags and alarms are going off, and yet no one has seen it. I am getting pissed at Nolan with his digital shouldn't be involved in film restoration attitude. In the Variety piece about the "unrestored" version, he compared what he is doing to what Scorsese and Spielberg did on LOA. They weren't checking the negative and weren't responsible for color timing. RAH knows Ned Price. This is becoming a controversial release and it's not even out yet. I think we need something specific at this point regarding this release, and someone needs to put Nolan in his place and have him stick to releasing his own films the way he wants.

  70. If you go on to the FILM TECH site someone has a picture of an original leader of a 1968 70mm print and it has Cinerama on it.
    He says there was different mix for Cinerama , very intresting.

  71. I loved the 70mm screening in London and the only way to see this film is on the biggest screen possible.
    Even if the 4KUHD is really good i do not think this film works on a small screen.

  72. DP 70

    I loved the 70mm screening in London and the only way to see this film is on the biggest screen possible.
    Even if the 4KUHD is really good i do not think this film works on a small screen.

    It’s an interesting anomaly.

    Before the advent of 4k Blu-rays, I used to equate a film screening to a DVD, akin to an illuminated manuscript vs a cold Xerox.

    With Blu-rays things got better.

    Now, it comes down to the visceral.

    Having compared 4k releases from OLED flat panel, to home theater projection, to 4k projection, on a 37 foot screen with Dolby Atmos, and then vs 4k DCP, the perceived differences are dwindling.

    I doubt that any, even serious, home theater aficionado, could tell the difference between the 4k Blu-ray, and the DCP, on screen, from a normal seating position.

    So, yes, it now really, only comes down to projected size, and the purely visceral.

    Do films like 2001, and Aurens work on small screens?

    Not really.

    In home theater projection?

    Much better.

    But the still need at screen width of at least 30 feet or so, to properly function.

  73. Robert Harris

    It’s an interesting anomaly..

    In home theater projection?

    Much better.

    But the still need at screen width of at least 30 feet or so, to properly function.

    Not there yet.;) I sit 11'6" back from a 16' wide, 17.5' diagonal projection screen. Immersive to be sure but I understand that ones mind knows the difference between this and a massive screen in a large venue.

  74. RobertR

    Wow. For the love of the movie, keep him away from this release!

    It definitely makes for an amusing fact if true, considering Nolan's line of work; but that link really is just one guy who claims Nolan was working for him in 90s. Other than that, I don't think we should speculate or start down the road of denigrating Nolan's capabilities as a filmmaker even if he truly suffers from this condition.

    While I do agree Nolan should not be allowed any input into the prep for the 4K restoration, my feelings on that have more to do with his wading into an area in which he has no expertise (film restoration) and his obsession with preserving the "analogue chain". Leave the film restoration to the experts!

  75. CarlosMeat

    Not there yet.;) I sit 11'6" back from a 16' wide, 17.5' diagonal projection screen. Immersive to be sure but I understand that ones mind knows the difference between this and a massive screen in a large venue.

    Wow, that is some close seating!
    I'm using a 9 foot wide scope screen sitting 9.5 feet back. I could sit as close as I want, but that is the max for my eye preference with scope movies anyway. I will say the last time I watched the 2001 Blu-ray it was a hell of a lot better experience on my FP compared to my former 65" panel at similar seating distance (not meant to discourage anyone watching this on a flat panel, but just saying). Anyway, this UHD BD should be a huge upgrade over the former BD for everyone!

  76. Dave H

    Wow, that is some close seating!

    Yea ,it is, and interestingly I didn't think I'd like it at first. I have multiple rows and had a couple of get togethers recently with large numbers of home theater nuts. When guys would come in they chose the front row first and then the rest of the seats got used.

    The clarity allows it and the immersion is what projection screens still have over flat panels.

  77. CarlosMeat

    The clarity allows it and the immersion is what projection screens still have over flat panels.

    Very true. projectors emulate the cinematic experience like no other hardware can. It is just a fantastic time to be a home theater enthusiast. I wanted a projector in the mid 90's when $8,000 for a decent SD projector was an average price. Now you can get a decent HD projector for $800.

  78. Bryan^H

    Very true. projectors emulate the cinematic experience like no other hardware can. It is just a fantastic time to be a home theater enthusiast. I wanted a projector in the mid 90's when $8,000 for a decent SD projector was an average price. Now you can get a decent HD projector for $800.

    …and decent 4K projectors are coming down in price too. I purchased en el cheapo Optoma LCD 4K projector for $2500 in January and the projected images from that and a 203 Oppo are streets ahead of the HD Sony I had. Seeing stuff like a 4K Saving Private Ryan or The Matrix at home is something I wouldn't have thought possible 20 years ago. And my home theatre set-up is in no way considered in the high-end sphere.

  79. I've been in home theater since 1997. The immersion of it compared to sitting in front of even a pretty large flat panel is the difference.

    With the Sony and Samsung modular screen walls ,the blurring of TV and theater will likely make dedicated rooms like I have all but obsolete. I think I will have mine for a long time but the image quality and shear size will be compelling to the point that I think front projection will disappear.

  80. Speaking only for me, I will never understand anyone who sits that close to a movie screen (and I know people who do it all the time). The first time I saw Ben-Hur during its original run at the Egyptian in Hollywood, we could only get first row seats. It was horrible and that was 70mm and huge. Immersive in a kind of nauseating way and for me nothing looks good that close up. The second time a few days later, halfway back and AHHHHHH – clarity, gorgeous, and perfect. Cinerama halfway back – gorgeous and plenty immersive. But first row – never since then other than as a test.

  81. A few friends and I had to take front row seats (center, at least) for a showing of ‘2001’ at the Dome in the 1980s, which was head-splittingly horrible in every respect — whereas my first few experiences with the film in the Cinerama houses had been enjoyed from a mezzanine or balcony, and they had seemed so wonderfully immersive and expansive.

  82. haineshisway

    Speaking only for me, I will never understand anyone who sits that close to a movie screen (and I know people who do it all the time). The first time I saw Ben-Hur during its original run at the Egyptian in Hollywood, we could only get first row seats. It was horrible and that was 70mm and huge. Immersive in a kind of nauseating way and for me nothing looks good that close up. The second time a few days later, halfway back and AHHHHHH – clarity, gorgeous, and perfect. Cinerama halfway back – gorgeous and plenty immersive. But first row – never since then other than as a test.

    I think that Cinerama even half way back would be at most one screen width away so that was pretty close seating and just about the best seat in the house. First row would probably have been less than one half screen width away and it does not really work out in my opinion, neither the audio nor the video is at its best at such a close distance. I guess it's good for the cinemas that people sit in these seats voluntarily but I never had a desire to sit so close.

    At home I have been sitting 1 to 1.1. screen widths away from scope screens of varying sizes for some time and I like it a lot for Blu-rays and recently the UHD discs, for lesser sources I often use a bigger relative seating distance.

  83. I completely agree with all this talk of avoiding the front row(s), but spare a thought for the poor disabled people who are usually shoved there as a matter of course. A lifelong film buff friend of mine who is permanently wheelchair-bound has all but given up on going to the cinema because of it. We've jointly endured many horrible, uncomfortable screenings this way. Thankfully, nowadays he has a huge TV and I have my PJ system, so the cinemas no longer get our cash and we alternate at each others' houses instead.

  84. To me the goal is not max angular FOV at expense of everything else. Otherwise, goggles. I like a huge screen and a large enough room to appreciate it in in relation to the surroundings and ambiance. The sonics will be better also. In a commercial theater, about half-way back from the screen. Cheers

  85. I've not been talking about a commercial theater myself here but my own room which has morphed into what it is today over a 10 year period. I have three rows of seating yet even for scope films find myself going to the front row despite it being less than two screen heights back. Guests sit in the front more than half the time as well, even given the choice of any seat.

    I've always been convinced that this is a personal preference. I my room the Atmos is optimized for the center two seats in the front and middle rows

  86. Ronald Epstein

    View attachment 44406

    The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ronspressrelease-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07B12HNJW&asins=B07B12HNJW&linkId=66fbd7ea2d1734bca96ffb2f7bcd6712&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

    The Amazon pricing has dropped to $23.87 so with some reward points, I'll get this release for under $20.00

  87. haineshisway

    Speaking only for me, I will never understand anyone who sits that close to a movie screen (and I know people who do it all the time). The first time I saw Ben-Hur during its original run at the Egyptian in Hollywood, we could only get first row seats. It was horrible and that was 70mm and huge. Immersive in a kind of nauseating way and for me nothing looks good that close up. The second time a few days later, halfway back and AHHHHHH – clarity, gorgeous, and perfect. Cinerama halfway back – gorgeous and plenty immersive. But first row – never since then other than as a test.

    I too saw 'Ben-Hur' at the Egyptian in its original run and was astounded at how it looked. I had never seen any film that looked like that. Perhaps that began my love of film.

    August 13, 1960. Center Section Row L. Ticket stub says '3' 'L' '4' and a large S. Not sure what those mean.

    I'd upload a picture of the ticket stub, but for some reason I can no longer upload to this site.

  88. I'm guessing the 3 and 4 designate doors 3 and 4 that would be on either side of the center section. Or perhaps the seat numbers, although my memory of reserved seats is that center always had/has triple numbers, i.e. 101, 102, and side has single and double numbers 1, 3, 5, etc.

  89. Robert Crawford

    The Amazon pricing has dropped to $23.87 so with some reward points, I'll get this release for under $20.00

    I suggest that you wait until it’s reviewed. More red flags have hit the turf, and it’s not promising.

    Pity, as it’s a decent little sci-fi flick.

  90. Robert Harris

    I suggest that you wait until it’s reviewed. More red flags have hit the turf, and it’s not promising.

    Pity, as it’s a decent little sci-fi flick.

    Can you explain further? thank you.

  91. Robert Harris

    I suggest that you wait until it’s reviewed. More red flags have hit the turf, and it’s not promising.

    Pity, as it’s a decent little sci-fi flick.

    NOOOOOO!!!!!! 🙁

  92. I’m canceling my amazon Pre-Order NOW

    2001 is my favorite film of all time and I refuse to send the message that it’s ok to release a Nolan revisionist mess. And that consumers will take whatever WB sells.

    WB should delay the release and correct it. Otherise you’ll be stuck with this transfer for 5+ years if they ever decide to attempt a new transfer.

  93. Apparently, WB is now suggesting that 5.1 was the original theatrical audio format.

    One can have either…

    Chris’ new reworked original tracks, which may now have problems,

    Or a restored track?

    Approved by Chris?

    Theatrical is no longer available with the original mix.

    The film is to be avoided in theaters.

    I fear that no one is piloting this ship.

  94. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  95. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  96. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  97. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  98. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  99. I had a bad feeling about this from the minute I heard about Nolan's involvement, through the sub-par screening of the 'new' 70mm 'unrestored' print, and now this nonsense regarding the original audio tracks. Sorry Chris, please keep your jealous paws off of Kubrick's masterpiece.

  100. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  101. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  102. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  103. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  104. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  105. With regards to the 5.1 mix, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

    From what I understand, the 5.1 mix was created around 1999-2000 with Leon Vitali's participation. Theaters showing the new 70mm prints are given at least two audio options to choose from when playing the film – the 5.1 track and the original track. They're both provided with the 70mm print; it's entirely the theater's choosing which one they run. So, for instance, the Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston ran the 70mm print with the 5.1 track, and the Somerville Theater (Boston area) ran the 70mm print with the original audio. I'd prefer the original audio but since both tracks carry the approval of the Kubrick estate, I think they're both valid options. They're not hugely different, though the 5.1 does center all of the dialogue (some of HAL's dialogue had previously been in the surround track in the original release).

    I am not aware of a new 5.1 track being created for this new 70mm release, and what I heard in theaters (in NYC and at the Coolidge Corner) was recognizable as the existing 5.1 mix that appears on the old Blu-ray.

    Pete – I just want to throw in that while you and I are in agreement about the quality of the Village East presentation, the presentation at Coolidge Corner was significantly better. After some shakiness in the main title, the rest of the film was solid. The image onscreen was sharp and steady, color was good, the mottling was much less visible, and there were no problems with flickering or hotspotting. Were it not for the negative tears appearing in both presentations, I would have assumed that the Coolidge was showing a non-Nolan print. Instead, it opened my eyes to just how badly the Village East was projecting it.

  106. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  107. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  108. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  109. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  110. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  111. I took the original announcement to mean there would be two 5.1 tracks presented on the UHD: the remix that's been available for a while, and one that more closely reflected the original mix (as closely as a modern 5.1 can, at least).

    Is that not what's actually happening?

  112. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  113. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  114. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  115. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  116. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  117. I can't believe that there is a possibility WB will not do a good job on this masterpiece of sight and sound. I recall seeing 2001 in early April, 1968 at the beautiful Loews Capitol in NYC. What an event! If the reviews are not good I simply will not purchase.

  118. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  119. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  120. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  121. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  122. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  123. My experience with the 70mm showing at AFI in Silver Spring was especially disheartening… not the least of which was finding out that AFI no longer has real projectionists since they now mostly show things digitally. The image on the screen was quite dark and I later found out that they do not replace the bulbs very often. The print quality was also baffling… scratches throughout but especially bad during the last reel which had two down the center of the image. I supposed they used the 5.1 track as there was not much in terms of surround activity or directional dialog. I had hoped that at least we would get a good 4K theatrical version out of this effort, but nothing said by Mr. Harris would hold out much hope for that. What a way to treat a masterpiece!

  124. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  125. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  126. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  127. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  128. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  129. RH

    Have you been able to sample what the disc looks like… or sounds like?

    I assume this is info from those in the know at WB passed along.

    Sad though. I had such high hopes for this film in 4K and new Blu transfer.

    Really would be shocking to have those brilliant white space tunnel to now end up becoming yellow tinged. Are we to believe that Kubrick intended yellow whites and teal pushed skys etc?!

    It is truly shocking that the Kubrick estate would let this happen.

    If the worst happens for this release i will have lost ALL respect to Kubricks estate / family and Leon V.

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

  130. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  131. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  132. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  133. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  134. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  135. Powell&Pressburger

    And i promise never another penny to anything Nolan ever makes Ever.

    I’ll never watch or buy Nolan’s movies. They will be Banned from my collection.

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

  136. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  137. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  138. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  139. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  140. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  141. Tino

    Yikes. That’s an extreme overreaction to rumors don’t you think? :huh:

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

  142. I'm really confused. Is the trailer the reason for the worries about a yellow/teal cast or is that how the new 70mm prints look? Because the trailer certainly looks to me like the existing Blu-ray with a color filter added rather than any new transfer.

    Keeping my pre-order for now, but who knows once the reviews come out. The funny thing is that this is the first UHD I've ordered (and 2001 was the very first Blu-ray I ever bought back in 2008).

  143. OK, this is scaring me. I will order it on day of release because I consider it a slight step up from the 2007, but this is not looking good based on what RAH is saying. We can blame Nolan as much as we want but Kubrick's people will deserve some blame and Ned Price as well. How could Ned Price, who has done amazing things at Warner's allow anything bad to happen? Nolan better be called out directly as well because I know he will give interviews saying why the choices they made were right, but Ned Price needs to be called out as he is in charge of Warner Home Video. He has done incredible things with the back catalog, how could he allow this. Is it because Nolan has been such a cash cow for Warners and he can do whatever he wants? What other films is Nolan going to do next for Warner? But it starts at the top, Price and Kubrick's people will have a lot to answer for.

  144. Well, all I can say is that this isn't any sort of heartening start to the list of qualities that are confirmed. I guess the $23.87 question is does the color look like contemporary films to 2001 (1968) or like the trailer ? If it ends up like the trailer the things I'd like to say, even in jest, regarding the WB team aren't good. I'll say it again ,the light in the darkness is the 4K UHD of Lawrence, please everyone use this as your guide.

  145. Brian Husar

    OK, this is scaring me. I will order it on day of release because I consider it a slight step up from the 2007, but this is not looking good based on what RAH is saying. We can blame Nolan as much as we want but Kubrick's people will deserve some blame and Ned Price as well. How could Ned Price, who has done amazing things at Warner's allow anything bad to happen? Nolan better be called out directly as well because I know he will give interviews saying why the choices they made were right, but Ned Price needs to be called out as he is in charge of Warner Home Video. He has done incredible things with the back catalog, how could he allow this. Is it because Nolan has been such a cash cow for Warners and he can do whatever he wants? What other films is Nolan going to do next for Warner? But it starts at the top, Price and Kubrick's people will have a lot to answer for.

    The interesting thing here, is that 2001 should have been an extremely simple restoration.

    Scan the extant camera negative, inclusive of dupes, as the basis of the project.

    Scan sep master set #2 toward replacement of necessary dupe shots.

    Clean, stabilize, and repair, as needed.

    Ascertain best color and density reference. One cannot use memory.

    One absolute, is totally black skies. No lifted blacks. No bit of air.

    Add color, densities, confirm continuity with original printer functions.

    Stir by hand for two minutes.

  146. Powell&Pressburger

    If the the worst happens… no it isn't. Why should I support films from a film maker who would ruin the transfer to my favorite film of all time. I prefer 2001 to any film Nolan has ever made or will ever make.

    IF and that’s s big IF, why place the blame entirely on Nolan? Will you also boycott all the studios films and all those involved?

  147. Nolan seems to be the main reason of the color changes. True WB and Kubricks estate would approve it, but remove Nolan and the issue may have been eradicated.

    Let’s not get off track, main issue is how 2001 should look. I guess I can trash and hate on Nolan later if our worst fears happen.

  148. Tino

    Exactly my point. Let’s wait to we see what the transfer looks like before we start screaming bloody murder and threatening boycotts. I am hopeful.

    Then why is Robert Harris thinking the worst?

    A member on another site posted that he had seen the 4K DCP in June and color timing was correct. no teal and correct white balance. Only concern If HDR pass could have ruined the transfer.

  149. I agree, let's see what the transfer looks like and it could still be a winner, but all this misinformation that RAH is reporting, it's like the people in charge don't know what's going on. The original sound mix was 5.1? No no no. There wasn't 5.1 sound in 68. My fear as well, if this does turn out to be bad is Nolan is going to make the press circuit with this saying this was the right way and the best way of releasing this in 4K and not realizing how wrong it is, and trashing film restoration and the good work RAH and others have done. Young film enthusiasts who watch the film because of Nolan will think they are watching it correctly. If it looks good he will get credit, but if it's a disaster he needs to get blamed, and the way everyone is with other releases, Warners and Nolan need to be bombarded with calls.

  150. Powell&Pressburger

    Nolan seems to be the main reason of the color changes. True WB and Kubricks estate would approve it, but remove Nolan and the issue may have been eradicated.

    Let’s not get off track, main issue is how 2001 should look. I guess I can trash and hate on Nolan later if our worst fears happen.

    What colour changes? Have you seen the theatrical reissue? Nothing was changed. Nolan is an analogue fetishist. He doesn't even digitally grade his own films – why would he do it to someone else's?

  151. I've said this before and it really is the main concern I believe of others and that is once it's done that's it. Sitting around b******g about it after the fact is just whining at that point.
    Expressing concern about it now even if some of it is rumor and hearsay is at least showing what the caring enthusiasts wants it to be. If it turns out good or bad at least we did what we could.

  152. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  153. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  154. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  155. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  156. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  157. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  158. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  159. Powell&Pressburger

    Have people not been complaining about the yellow and teal?

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

  160. After readying this thread and its posts, I’ll I can say is : “boo Warner Bros.!”

    I’ll remove this one from my wish list.

    Do things right Warner Bros. . Maybe start with bringing back your home video department so titles like this don’t get cocked up.

    There is No reason for this title to be anything but spectacular. Major fail.

  161. Worth

    Only on the basis of a YouTube trailer. The new 4K DCP has been screened already and as far as I know, there have been no complaints about the colours. And such changes seem to run contrary to the aesthetic of both the Warner Bros. home video department and Christopher Nolan. We also have yet to hear from anyone who has actually seen the disc. If the original sound mix is in fact missing, that would be regrettable, but also pretty much par for the course for catalogue releases.

    The “original” sound mix will be missing from the 4k home theater version, as home theaters cannot run 70mm 6-track.

    For home theater 5.1 would be correct.

    It is, however, not correct for DCPs, which should have a 70mm option.

  162. The book by Arthur C Clarke follows what Kubrick says but adds more detail. The inaccuracy of the room for David is because the transmission from the moon was cut off when the monolith was discovered (the aliens were monitoring). David dies and is reborn as the star child. When the star child arrives at Earth, he moves the clouds a bit and wonders what he will do next.

  163. trajan007

    On the positive side we are getting 70mm elements for the first time as opposed to the current bluray which is from a 35mm source from what I understand.

    65 or 70, as called here, is not always a step up from 35. Many things come into play

  164. Tino

    Sorry, but I take any news from that site as sketchy.

    Again I’m staying cautiously optimistic.

    It was someone who was in atrendance at that panel. It could be the monitor they were using but so far all signs point to 2001 color as being altered. Even WB trailer represents that.

    My guess is the disc will come out and the reviews will be that yes the color is altered but it isnt as drastic as we thought it would be.

    Im guessing a cyan push and slightly yellowed whites.

    People will then say its not that bad and most everyone will buy it. making only Nolan happy and most fans of the film miffed it couldnt be better.

  165. Powell&Pressburger

    It was someone who was in atrendance at that panel. It could be the monitor they were using but so far all signs point to 2001 color as being altered. Even WB trailer represents that.

    My guess is the disc will come out and the reviews will be that yes the color is altered but it isnt as drastic as we thought it would be.

    Im guessing a cyan push and slightly yellowed whites.

    People will then say its not that bad and most everyone will buy it. making only Nolan happy and most fans of the film miffed it couldnt be better.

    This is literally one of the worst things I've heard in my 40 years of being a home theater geek. The truth in your post is many faceted. The fact that we probably will get people who just say it's fine over and over and this is how it was intended by the artists and on and on.

    Like I said, thank God we got Lawrence, Wizard of Oz ,Gone With The Wind, and The Red Shoes before this trend hit.

  166. Powell&Pressburger

    It was someone who was in atrendance at that panel. It could be the monitor they were using but so far all signs point to 2001 color as being altered. Even WB trailer represents that.

    My guess is the disc will come out and the reviews will be that yes the color is altered but it isnt as drastic as we thought it would be.

    Im guessing a cyan push and slightly yellowed whites.

    People will then say its not that bad and most everyone will buy it. making only Nolan happy and most fans of the film miffed it couldnt be better.

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

  167. With regards to the UHD, please everyone, completely disregard the 70mm unrestored. Forget its existence. It is not relevant to this release. It was a good experience, but, as the title implies, the print had many issues. End of. It’s time is done. My question is, why would WB degrade the magnificent 4K DCP myself and many other fans of the film have seen here in the UK and elsewhere. Why would they do that? As others have said here, I haven’t heard anyone criticise it. There is no Teal/Orange push. It is truly beautiful. If it is found that this has been meddled with for the home market, there would have had to be a reason, to justify the no doubt considerable expence involved. Sorry guys, I just don’t get it. It would be madness imo.

  168. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Sure, he does. "Dunkirk" had a heavy teal slant. "Interstellar" went that way. "Inception" went that way, etc…

  169. Powell&Pressburger

    It was someone who was in atrendance at that panel. It could be the monitor they were using but so far all signs point to 2001 color as being altered. Even WB trailer represents that.

    My guess is the disc will come out and the reviews will be that yes the color is altered but it isnt as drastic as we thought it would be.

    Im guessing a cyan push and slightly yellowed whites.

    People will then say its not that bad and most everyone will buy it. making only Nolan happy and most fans of the film miffed it couldnt be better.

    While Robert Harris' comments do not inspire confidence, I think there is too much uncertainty about the ComicCon presentation for any of us to conclude that the sky is falling. All we have is that one guy's impression, and there are SO many variables that could have affected the image quality that we don't know the answers to…

    Was the projected image even in 4k?
    Was it on a projector or monitor that even supports HDR?
    Was it calibrated?
    Was the brightness punched up to make the image more visible in a brightly-lit auditorium?
    etc.
    etc.

  170. Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

  171. Tino

    Sorry, but I take any news from that site as sketchy.

    Again I’m staying cautiously optimistic.

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

  172. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  173. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  174. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  175. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  176. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  177. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  178. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  179. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  180. Worth

    I'm still puzzled as to why you would think Nolan would want to tealify 2001 when he doesn't even do that to his own movies.

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

  181. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  182. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  183. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  184. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  185. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  186. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  187. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  188. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  189. Robert Harris

    Mamma Mia! Here we go again.

    Clarity.

    My comments make no note of the look, textures, color or quality of the final 4k release.

    I've seen nothing, and tend to disregard trailers.

    My point has been very simple.

    Wait for reviews before ordering.

    No more. No less.

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

  190. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  191. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  192. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  193. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  194. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  195. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  196. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  197. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  198. The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    I have seen the DCP which is by all accounts going to look similar to the remastered Blu-ray and Ultra-HD editions. It looks fantastic and the colors looked very much like the 70mm prints. It didn't look like the old Blu-ray edition so I feel that there will be cries of revisionism because of that alone.

    I have also seen the new 70mm prints which were created with Christopher Nolan's involvement. While there were issues with black levels and colors looked faded in parts, it did not look like that trailer that was making the rounds on here. I have a suspicion that certain groups of people especially over on that other site are intentionally twisting comments and using misleading evidence to incite an uproar.

    However I shall heed the advice of Mr. Harris and wait until screenshots or educated reviews are available before making a purchase.

  199. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  200. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  201. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  202. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  203. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  204. Ken Koc

    Why would Warner's allow Nolan to change one of their most revered classics. I worked at at Cinerame theater upon 2001's first release in 1968 ( Nolan was 2 years old. He never saw it upon original release)… I must have seen it 300 times……there was nothing teal about it.

    What do you mean that Nolan never saw the original release? Surely, you remember that kid who walked up to you during Intermission. He was wearing toy sunglasses that were a sort of blue-green shade of plastic. He asked you if the concession stand was selling Clarke bars. He asked you why popcorn had varying shades of yellow/white colors. And he asked you if you liked Adam West. Very advanced kid. You must have mistaken him for being four.:D

  205. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  206. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  207. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  208. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  209. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  210. RobertR

    The report isn't from a "site", it's from a person who witnessed the showing. Since he was there and you weren't, his observations have more weight than your "optimism" that's not based on having seen what he saw.

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

  211. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  212. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  213. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  214. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  215. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  216. NegativeCreep

    The posters on that site tend to overexaggerate a lot and see teal in everything. After they've cried wolf so many times saying something has been tealed when it clearly hasn't, I can't trust their opinions.

    Exactly!

  217. Tino

    I know that. My point is I don’t trust any reports from any member on “that site”.

    I'm not going to dismiss an eye witness account solely on the basis of it being posted on a web site you don't like. You've presented no evidence that the account isn't credible

  218. YanMan

    While Robert Harris' comments do not inspire confidence, I think there is too much uncertainty about the ComicCon presentation for any of us to conclude that the sky is falling. All we have is that one guy's impression, and there are SO many variables that could have affected the image quality that we don't know the answers to…

    Was the projected image even in 4k?
    Was it on a projector or monitor that even supports HDR?
    Was it calibrated?
    Was the brightness punched up to make the image more visible in a brightly-lit auditorium?
    etc.
    etc.

    I'd probably trust a demo display at a Best Buy more than something projected at a convention.

  219. RobertR

    I'm not going to dismiss an eye witness account solely on the basis of it being posted on a web site you don't like. You've presented no evidence that the account isn't credible

    Of course not. And I wasn’t trying to.

    And to be clear I read the reviews on that site often. They are well written and helpful.

    It’s the extremely poorly moderated forums and most of the hyperbolic members that’s the problem with that site.

  220. It wouldn't surprise me if the transfer does turn out to be tealed, but some people wind up saying something like "ehh, it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be, I can't understand why they're making such a fuss".

  221. RobertR

    It wouldn't surprise me if the transfer does turn out to be tealed, but some people wind up saying something like "ehh, it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be, I can't understand why they're making such a fuss".

    Of course that’s going to happen.

    Especially on “that site”! :lol::D

  222. RobertR

    It wouldn't surprise me if the transfer does turn out to be tealed, but some people wind up saying something like "ehh, it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be, I can't understand why they're making such a fuss".

    Or there's the other one…No, it always looked like that. I can distinctly remember seeing it at the cinema 50 years ago & can remember it looking exactly like that. Very good advice from Mr Harris, just wait for the reviews/comments. You never know, we may be pleasantly surprised.

  223. Powell&Pressburger

    Would have been nice to have some clarification on your comments sooner.

    They did come across vague and worrisome. Especially knowing how the topic got supercharged.

    There have been numerous clarifications, here and elsewhere.

  224. Amazon has annoyed me for years with movie releases, lumping all versions together, making it difficult to determine to which product a review. They've not done that yet with the UHD release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That rant out of the way, several the current reviews of the UHD release mention the teal issues, Nolan's potential interference, and R. Harris's concerns about the quality of the new release. (Of course another irritant with Amazon's review policy is their allowance of reviews of a product months before its release.)

  225. Just to put things into perspective with regard to Christopher Nolan: He seems to suffer from red/green color blindness which by the way is very common in white males:

    https://medium.com/@courtneyjordan/…hould-care-about-color-blindness-beabd61943eb

    I was surprised when I first read it but it seems to be true that he suffers from it. One would therefore assume that he has (non-colorblind) helpers who take care of color-timing his movies for him.

  226. Again, what confuses me is why would Warners give Nolan the keys to the kingdom with this film. There is a variety article I read where he compared what he is doing to what Scorsese and Spielberg did on Lawrence. I am sure RAH can confirm that is not what he is doing. I see photos of Nolan actully in the lab checking the neg. Is it because he has been such a money maker for Warners? If that's the case Ned Price should have him do more transfers and restorations, hell let him do Ryan's Daughter next. Sarcastic. That's my big confusion, why did Ned Price give him a free hand, and it's obvious they are worried, more worried than any other release. Question, is Nolan worried that his reputation can be on the line?

  227. Brian Husar

    Again, what confuses me is why would Warners give Nolan the keys to the kingdom with this film. There is a variety article I read where he compared what he is doing to what Scorsese and Spielberg did on Lawrence. I am sure RAH can confirm that is not what he is doing. I see photos of Nolan actully in the lab checking the neg. Is it because he has been such a money maker for Warners? If that's the case Ned Price should have him do more transfers and restorations, hell let him do Ryan's Daughter next. Sarcastic. That's my big confusion, why did Ned Price give him a free hand, and it's obvious they are worried, more worried than any other release. Question, is Nolan worried that his reputation can be on the line?

    What Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Scorsese added to Lawrence was their support, which was major in moving the project forward. That in addition to having their names involved, which is the only similarity I can see between Law and 2001.

  228. Robert Harris

    More red flags have hit the turf, and it’s not promising.
    Pity, as it’s a decent little sci-fi flick.

    Robert,
    I have the greatest respect for you as a person and your work. Because of your experience, reputation, high standards and accessibility folks like me tend to hang on every single word, especially when it is such a beloved film for some of us. Thus the knee jerk reaction.

  229. Brian Husar

    […] If that's the case Ned Price should have him do more transfers and restorations, hell let him do Ryan's Daughter next. Sarcastic.[…]

    Don't even joke about my Rosie.:angry:

  230. PMF

    Don't even joke about my Rosie.:angry:

    Can't you just hear Nolan's humorless quiet tone in interviews talking about why he would have to restore it and how digital technology would be a no no on this.

  231. Robert Harris

    What Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Scorsese added to Lawrence was their support, which was major in moving the project forward. That in addition to having their names involved, which is the only similarity I can see between Law and 2001.

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

  232. Brian Husar

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

    Mr. Nolan does not need to be put in his place.

    He’s obviously extremely passionate about fillum, and lacks an education regarding the abilities of digital technology, and how it relates back to film.

    I’d be happy to give a Master’s Class.

  233. Brian Husar

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

    Mr. Nolan does not need to be put in his place.

    He’s obviously extremely passionate about fillum, and lacks an education regarding the abilities of digital technology, and how it relates back to film.

    I’d be happy to give a Master’s Class.

  234. Brian Husar

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

    Mr. Nolan does not need to be put in his place.

    He’s obviously extremely passionate about fillum, and lacks an education regarding the abilities of digital technology, and how it relates back to film.

    I’d be happy to give a Master’s Class.

  235. Brian Husar

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

    Mr. Nolan does not need to be put in his place.

    He’s obviously extremely passionate about fillum, and lacks an education regarding the abilities of digital technology, and how it relates back to film.

    I’d be happy to give a Master’s Class.

  236. Brian Husar

    And also helped with Dawn Steele. Does he actually think they were examining the neg with a magnifying glass like I see photos of him doing, and unspooling camera neg and Scorsese hiring Ballhaus to do color timing? You did it with David Lean. I would pay to see you debate Nolan and put him in his place. I love his films, but now that is starting to sour on me due to his involvement in this.

    Mr. Nolan does not need to be put in his place.

    He’s obviously extremely passionate about fillum, and lacks an education regarding the abilities of digital technology, and how it relates back to film.

    I’d be happy to give a Master’s Class.

  237. I wish you would. What I think will save this project is the huge value of the property to Warners. They've never stopped making money on it and I am sure, assuming Ned Price and his team is still there, they are doing a beautiful 4K/HDR encode of it from prime elements as we speak. Here's a salutory tale: When I came out of a screening of a restoration of the Hawks 1932 Scarface at Bologna CInema Ritrovato last year, someone who is very senior in the world of international film biz and who (I thought) might have known better said to me "Isn't it wonderful to see this in 35mm"? I quietly reminded him when we were alone it was in fact Universal's 4K DCP. There is a lot of BS out there about digital and I would rather trust a good projectionist these days than many of these other people.

  238. Colin Jacobson

    Why do you assume that?

    Not every 4K UHD improves its BD counterpart – see "T2" for an example…

    Yeah but the overwhelming majority do.

    I can’t think of another Blu-ray besting it’s 4K counterpart.

  239. Colin Jacobson

    Why do you assume that?

    Not every 4K UHD improves its BD counterpart – see "T2" for an example…

    I don't agree with your T2 example. Sure, the 4K/UHD disc is mediocre at best, but I still say it looks better than the BD.

  240. Colin Jacobson

    Why do you assume that?

    Not every 4K UHD improves its BD counterpart – see "T2" for an example…

    I don't agree with your T2 example. Sure, the 4K/UHD disc is mediocre at best, but I still say it looks better than the BD.

  241. Colin Jacobson

    Why do you assume that?

    Not every 4K UHD improves its BD counterpart – see "T2" for an example…

    I don't agree with your T2 example. Sure, the 4K/UHD disc is mediocre at best, but I still say it looks better than the BD.

  242. Tino

    […] I can’t think of another Blu-ray besting it’s 4K counterpart.

    Oblivion clearly does and I have seen others that may have not been as clearcut but imo the Blu-ray is better.

    That being said Oblivion has a great Blu-ray which cannot be said for 2001 so for the UHD not to improve upon it would be rather difficult to achieve.

  243. OliverK

    Oblivion clearly does and I have seen others that may have not been as clearcut but imo the Blu-ray is better.

    That being said Oblivion has a great Blu-ray which cannot be said for 2001 so for the UHD not to improve upon it would be rather difficult to achieve.

    I disagree. The Oblivion UHD to my eyes is a clear improvement over the Blu Ray. And I’ve read reviews stating the same.

  244. Tino

    I disagree. The Oblivion UHD to my eyes is a clear improvement over the Blu Ray. And I’ve read reviews stating the same.

    Interesting. Why would you consider it a clear improvement, and do you also consider detail to be improved?

    I was very much appalled myself to actually see a disc with noticably inferior detail than the Blu-ray version that was in the same package and the revised color grading did not help either as the Blu-ray was pretty close to the theatrical presentation which I still think should be the gold standard and not changed but just expanded upon by a UHD release..

  245. OliverK

    Interesting. Why would you consider it a clear improvement, and do you also consider detail to be improved?

    I was very much appalled myself to actually see a disc with noticably inferior detail than the Blu-ray version that was in the same package and the revised color grading did not help either as the Blu-ray was pretty close to the theatrical presentation which I still think should be the gold standard and not changed but just expanded upon by a UHD release..

    I consider it a clear improvement and detail was noticeably improved with pleasing HDR implementation.

    And I agree the Blu Ray looks great too. But the UHD was considerably better in all departments.

  246. Tino

    I consider it a clear improvement and detail was noticeably improved with pleasing HDR implementation.

    And I agree the Blu Ray looks great too. But the UHD was considerably better in all departments.

    Ugh, I thought the detail on the UHD was awful compared to the standard BD. I sold my 4K version.

  247. Tino

    On my LG 65” OLED I thought it looked tremendous.

    I made the mistake of seeing a comprison on another site, so then I checked my copies for this, and sure enough some of the detail on the distance shots of the UHD looked smeared, compared to the crisp detail of the BD. The color on the UHD was much better though.

  248. Robert Crawford

    I don't agree with your T2 example. Sure, the 4K/UHD disc is mediocre at best, but I still say it looks better than the BD.

    Which BD becomes a question for "T2".

    I prefer the 2015 BD to the 4K. At least it still looks like film!

  249. Robert Harris

    Fact:

    The studio has announced two 5.1 tracks for the 4k digital presentations, neither representative of the original film.

    No original 6-track is available.

    There's a picture in this article that shows one of the mixes available:
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018…ly-evolved-humans-going-places-eating-things/

    Here it is on it's own:
    [​IMG]

    The label for the mix reads, in part:

    2001
    A Space Odyssey
    Non-restored mix version (2018)
    Reels 1-10
    70mm (5-front) Datasat Audio Master

    Doesn't "70mm (5-front)" suggest the original 70mm 6 track mix, which were 5 front channels, and one surround?

  250. Jay G.

    There's a picture in this article that shows one of the mixes available:
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018…ly-evolved-humans-going-places-eating-things/

    Here it is on it's own:
    [​IMG]

    The label for the mix reads, in part:

    Doesn't "70mm (5-front)" suggest the original 70mm 6 track mix, which were 5 front channels, and one surround?

    If that image is accurate, it represents a new mix, for afaik the original mix did not have split surrounds, either actual or Perspecta. As I recall, the original mix had a single effects channel.

    Whatever this mix might be, it does not seem to be offered to venues by WB domestic.

  251. Colin Jacobson

    Which BD becomes a question for "T2".

    I prefer the 2015 BD to the 4K. At least it still looks like film!

    Exactly, I do not appreciate to have more detail but no film grain, it looks just wrong.

  252. Bryan^H

    I made the mistake of seeing a comprison on another site, so then I checked my copies for this, and sure enough some of the detail on the distance shots of the UHD looked smeared, compared to the crisp detail of the BD. The color on the UHD was much better though.

    Yes, there is less detail and it is clearly visible.
    The BD looks more bluish but this is how I remember it theatrically, a clean bluish look that I am generally not a big fan of but I thought that it fit the movie. Imo there is one correct look as intended for theatrical display and one should stick with it and not change it around with every new release except of course to accomodate the DCi color space but greenish skies would be well within the capabilities of the Blu-ray format and do not need to change due to the bigger color space. So there is no reason why there is more green in the UHD version in this scene for example, the BD version could be just as green if that look was intended:

    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…748&d2=11747&s1=115761&s2=115777&l=0&i=1&go=1

    This is also good to see the general softening of the picture that I found very obvious when first checking out the UHD version as I had hoped for even better detail than the Blu-ray. The difference is so obvious that one does not even have to go back and forth a lot to notice it and I consider it a huge blunder by Universal to take one of the most detailed Blu-rays that they have and then soften it for the UHD release.

  253. You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 4 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

  254. You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 4 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

  255. You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 4 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

  256. You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 4 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

  257. Tino

    Instead of further derailing this thread here is RAH’s A Few Words About Oblivion in UHD thread where he disputed some of the claims and explains the differences between the releases and what some may be seeing and why. He gave the image a 5.
    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co…livion-in-4k-uhd-blu-ray.349170/#post-4411009

    Agreed, let's get back to 2001. I did not realize that it has been almost 2 years already, time flies!

  258. Nick*Z

    You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 4 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

    Zhivago probably would be the best choice: It is available in 4k and the most detailed of the 35mm titles you mention. Grand Prix could look spectacular but isn't available in 4k to the best of my knowledge so I would not consider it a good choice unless revisited.

    At the moment with the uncertainty around the 2001 release I would feel best if not too many other high profile titles get released or announced before we know how 2001 is handled. I t should be spectacular but there is a bit of doubt after the "unrestored" 70mm release and the trailers looking rather strange.

  259. Nick*Z

    Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain?

    It looks like all three of those have 4K DCP's available, so I would think it wouldn't be difficult for WB to issue UHD discs of them.

    I wonder, though, aside from better color, would UHD really display a marked improvement over Blu-ray as far as detail goes? Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but I believe that the 4K transfers that are out there were from the time when WB was digitally recombining the three separate picture elements and compensating for misalignment due to shrinkage. They look pretty good on Blu-ray, but the detail is still pretty soft in comparison to a large format film or even a lot of films that weren't shot in 3-strip Technicolor. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the clarity of 3-strip Technicolor photography could offer their expertise.

    I'd love to have UHD releases of these films if they truly offered a noticeable upgrade from 1080p, but I just don't know that they would.

  260. Robert Harris

    If that image is accurate, it represents a new mix, for afaik the original mix did not have split surrounds, either actual or Perspecta. As I recall, the original mix had a single effects channel.

    Whatever this mix might be, it does not seem to be offered to venues by WB domestic.

    This is a pic of the digital soundtrack for the 70mm release.
    Datasat (formerly DTS) provides a 6 channel or 8 channel disc, depending on the player being used.
    The XD10 can play 8 channel discs, which is what's labeled in the pic.
    I don't think this is evidence of anything but the format of the audio disc in use.

  261. Colin Jacobson

    Why do you assume that?

    Not every 4K UHD improves its BD counterpart – see "T2" for an example…

    Warner is more likely to put out a better product than Lionsgate. But outside of T2, is there another title where the BD is actually preferable? I mean you're talking one title out of how many hundreds of UHD BDs? Sure, there is the "Nolan card" at play here, but I feel confident enough he won't goof it up to such an extent.

    I find the current 2001 Blu-ray not poor, but not very good either. It's just an old looking transfer with an old looking encode that doesn't have the film-like look I so often see on more recent remastered catalog titles (whether BD or UHD BD). Not hard to improve upon.

  262. Dave H

    Warner is more likely to put out a better product than Lionsgate. But outside of T2, is there another title where the BD is actually preferable? I mean you're talking one title out of how many hundreds of UHD BDs? Sure, there is the "Nolan card" at play here, but I feel confident enough he won't goof it up to such an extent.

    I find the current 2001 Blu-ray not poor, but not very good either. It's just an old looking transfer with an old looking encode that doesn't have the film-like look I so often see on more recent remastered catalog titles (whether BD or UHD BD). Not hard to improve upon.

    There were posts previously in this thread where some feel Oblivion looks better on Blu Ray. I and others disagreed.

  263. Dave H

    Warner is more likely to put out a better product than Lionsgate. But outside of T2, is there another title where the BD is actually preferable?

    I acknowledge the UHD is almost always superior – I just wanted to point out it wasn't the 100% lock the person to whom I replied indicated.

    And some "BD vs. UHD" debates come down to your tolerance for certain issues over others. For instance, I watched "Jurassic World" 4K tonight and it exhibited small specks that weren't on the BD.

    So the UHD offered somewhat stronger definition and colors, but it also presented specks that weren't on the BD.

    I'd still probably go with the 4K but it's not the slam-dunk it should be and I could fully understand why some would prefer the cleaner BD…

  264. Dave H

    Warner is more likely to put out a better product than Lionsgate. But outside of T2, is there another title where the BD is actually preferable?

    Ender's Game. The 4K UHD released by Lionsgate has incorrect, elevated black levels and they've never bothered to fix it. The Blu-ray looks superior.

  265. Dave H

    I find the current 2001 Blu-ray not poor, but not very good either. It's just an old looking transfer with an old looking encode that doesn't have the film-like look I so often see on more recent remastered catalog titles (whether BD or UHD BD). Not hard to improve upon.

    Due to the relatively low quality of the old Blu-ray Warner could improve upon the Blu-ray even with a mediocre UHD release.
    A little bit like a not very good Blu-ray that however still improves upon the DVD version – easy.

    I think that we all agree that 2001 is a very important title and one where the goal should not only be to surpass the Blu-ray but ideally to show what the format is capable of for large format catalog titles.

  266. Dave H

    Warner is more likely to put out a better product than Lionsgate. But outside of T2, is there another title where the BD is actually preferable? I mean you're talking one title out of how many hundreds of UHD BDs?

    Preferable, probably not. However, I’ve got about 20 UHD discs and so far only one has been a significant improvement over the Blu Ray. That one is Bladerunner. The others have been marginal improvements. Now that I have them, of course I will watch them rather then the Blu Ray, but I find the increase in price and having to double dip (again) makes them a poor value.

  267. Johnny Angell

    Preferable, probably not. However, I’ve got about 20 UHD discs and so far only one has been a significant improvement over the Blu Ray. That one is Bladerunner. The others have been marginal improvements. Now that I have them, of course I will watch them rather then the Blu Ray, but I find the increase in price and having to double dip (again) makes them a poor value.

    This post makes me wonder what the other 19 4K UHDs are!

  268. I think part of the problem with UHD BD is a lot of benefit one perceives depends on their set-up: screen size to seating distance, tone mapping ability, nits, wide color gamut coverage, etc. People's displays and projectors are all over the place with this where as with rec 709/SDR/BD, it was so much more straight forward and the variance amongst set-ups was so much narrower.

  269. Robert Crawford

    I should wonder, but I don't as I've seen significantly more improvement on just about all of my 4K discs.

    The more 4Ks I watch, the less difference I see a lot of the time, honestly – though that's almost always for 2K-mastered modern movies.

    For instance, I watched both "Quiet Place" and "Rampage" BD and 4K recently. I thought the 4Ks looked better but they weren't slam dunks, and the main differences related mostly to HDR.

    I'll still opt for 4K 99% of the time because there's some upgrade, but if the source is 2K, there's only so much difference I see…

  270. Colin Jacobson

    The more 4Ks I watch, the less difference I see a lot of the time, honestly – though that's almost always for 2K-mastered modern movies.

    For instance, I watched both "Quiet Place" and "Rampage" BD and 4K recently. I thought the 4Ks looked better but they weren't slam dunks, and the main differences related mostly to HDR.

    I'll still opt for 4K 99% of the time because there's some upgrade, but if the source is 2K, there's only so much difference I see…

    If I’ve got a choice between blu, 4K or 3D, I’ll choose 3D. If the only choice is Blu or 4K, I’ll pick 4K. If I’ve already got a blu I’m happy with, I need a real good reason to upgrade.

  271. Colin Jacobson

    The more 4Ks I watch, the less difference I see a lot of the time, honestly – though that's almost always for 2K-mastered modern movies.

    For instance, I watched both "Quiet Place" and "Rampage" BD and 4K recently. I thought the 4Ks looked better but they weren't slam dunks, and the main differences related mostly to HDR.

    I'll still opt for 4K 99% of the time because there's some upgrade, but if the source is 2K, there's only so much difference I see…

    If I’ve got a choice between blu, 4K or 3D, I’ll choose 3D. If the only choice is Blu or 4K, I’ll pick 4K. If I’ve already got a blu I’m happy with, I need a real good reason to upgrade.

  272. Colin Jacobson

    The more 4Ks I watch, the less difference I see a lot of the time, honestly – though that's almost always for 2K-mastered modern movies.

    For instance, I watched both "Quiet Place" and "Rampage" BD and 4K recently. I thought the 4Ks looked better but they weren't slam dunks, and the main differences related mostly to HDR.

    I'll still opt for 4K 99% of the time because there's some upgrade, but if the source is 2K, there's only so much difference I see…

    If I’ve got a choice between blu, 4K or 3D, I’ll choose 3D. If the only choice is Blu or 4K, I’ll pick 4K. If I’ve already got a blu I’m happy with, I need a real good reason to upgrade.

  273. Colin Jacobson

    The more 4Ks I watch, the less difference I see a lot of the time, honestly – though that's almost always for 2K-mastered modern movies.

    For instance, I watched both "Quiet Place" and "Rampage" BD and 4K recently. I thought the 4Ks looked better but they weren't slam dunks, and the main differences related mostly to HDR.

    I'll still opt for 4K 99% of the time because there's some upgrade, but if the source is 2K, there's only so much difference I see…

    If I’ve got a choice between blu, 4K or 3D, I’ll choose 3D. If the only choice is Blu or 4K, I’ll pick 4K. If I’ve already got a blu I’m happy with, I need a real good reason to upgrade.

  274. Nick*Z

    You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 3 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

    Agreed. In addition to this 4K 2001 release, I would love to get 4K releases of Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain. Who knows if they'll ever get released.

  275. Nick*Z

    You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 3 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

    Agreed. In addition to this 4K 2001 release, I would love to get 4K releases of Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain. Who knows if they'll ever get released.

  276. Nick*Z

    You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 3 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

    Agreed. In addition to this 4K 2001 release, I would love to get 4K releases of Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain. Who knows if they'll ever get released.

  277. Nick*Z

    You know, it's really tough for me to get impassioned one way or the other about a 4K release that is still at least 3 months away. I've had 2001 preordered on Amazon for it seems like an eternity. Draggin' Draggin'.

    I'll say this for WB. Their slate of catalog 4K releases has been a mere trickle, with nothing except 2001 on the horizon for the rest of 2018. Would it really throw their quarterly stock holder's report to add a few more deep catalog releases to the itinerary? Doctor Zhivago? Gone With The Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Singin' in the Rain? Grand Prix? Anyone?

    Agreed. In addition to this 4K 2001 release, I would love to get 4K releases of Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain. Who knows if they'll ever get released.

  278. THE BORNE IDENTITY looks better on Blu-ray. Of course, the UHD of that appears to be no more than an uprez of an older HD master, though.

    UNDERWORLD looks identical to the Blu-ray in terms of detail, but the UHD looks "brighter", sometimes at the expense of detail being blown out.

    Vincent

  279. holtge

    Agreed. In addition to this 4K 2001 release, I would love to get 4K releases of Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain. Who knows if they'll ever get released.

    Next year will be the 80th Anniversary of both Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz … no better time for 4K releases.

  280. CarlosMeat

    I'm thinking are there any 1.37:1 AR UHD BDs ?

    Not that I know of.

    I would really like for studios to select titles that actually have the potential to also show some added resolution comparted to what Blu-ray is capable of so if Warner is going to release some of their more popular classics on UHD how about The Searchers, North By Northwest, Dr. Zhivago or Ben-Hur?

    How the West was Won would also be a perfect candidate even though it is not in the same league as the others with regard to popularity and critical acclaim. To me it looks better than any of todays Alexa 65 and 65mm Imax productions.

  281. Only the original 1999 DVD have the original mix apparently. (MGM single release and part of the original Stanley Kubrick Collection box set, before they remastered them all in 2001 with HD masters and remixes that we've been having ever since).
    But how do I play it on my set up to get the exact original separation?

    It's funny looking back on it, the original box set, which was criticized at the time for recycling past LDs and VHS masters, is now the only way to get the original mixes, in addition to 100% Kubrick approved colors.

  282. Johnny Angell

    If I’ve got a choice between blu, 4K or 3D, I’ll choose 3D. If the only choice is Blu or 4K, I’ll pick 4K. If I’ve already got a blu I’m happy with, I need a real good reason to upgrade.

    I'd usually prefer 3D over 4K, too, but a couple of films have made it tough to choose – like "Guardians of the Galaxy V2". The 4K version looks STUNNING – but the 3D has the "alternate aspect ratio" and excellent 3D effects, so it's my narrow choice…

  283. Colin Jacobson

    I'd usually prefer 3D over 4K, too, but a couple of films have made it tough to choose – like "Guardians of the Galaxy V2". The 4K version looks STUNNING – but the 3D has the "alternate aspect ratio" and excellent 3D effects, so it's my narrow choice…

    And what was your narrow choice? And we shouldn’t have to make the choice, they 4K should include 3D.

  284. Johnny Angell

    And what was your narrow choice? And we shouldn’t have to make the choice, they 4K should include 3D.

    My statement indicated that the 3D "GotG V2" is my narrow preference over the 4K.

    And in that case, I did get both 4K and 3D together since I was able to buy the Best Buy exclusive…

  285. Powell&Pressburger

    Next year will be the 80th Anniversary of both Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz … no better time for 4K releases.

    Yes, but is it known if GWTW and Oz are capable of making the transition?
    So far, the oldest 4K/UHD title is "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957).

  286. PMF

    Yes, but is it known if GWTW and Oz are capable of making the transition?
    So far, the oldest 4K/UHD title is "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957).

    Truthfully I dont see why any film no matter how old can’t transition into 4K UHD.

    Both were shot on 35mm film and would be native 4K not upscales.

    Also imagine classic black and white films in 4K most lovers of classic cinema can tell you that many black and white films look more stunning in HD than something jisy made recently in color.

    Add to that a title like Wizard and Gone both have been re-issued to death on all formats so far its only a matter of time before WB transitions them into 4K.

  287. Powell&Pressburger

    Truthfully I dont see why any film no matter how old can’t transition into 4K UHD.

    Both were shot on 35mm film and would be native 4K not upscales.

    Also imagine classic black and white films in 4K most lovers of classic cinema can tell you that many black and white films look more stunning in HD than something jisy made recently in color.

    Add to that a title like Wizard and Gone both have been re-issued to death on all formats so far its only a matter of time before WB transitions them into 4K.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 4K/UHD format;
    but better, more qualified people could technically explain why this may or may not be so.
    Hope you're right, though.

  288. Powell&Pressburger

    Truthfully I dont see why any film no matter how old can’t transition into 4K UHD.

    Both were shot on 35mm film and would be native 4K not upscales.

    Also imagine classic black and white films in 4K most lovers of classic cinema can tell you that many black and white films look more stunning in HD than something jisy made recently in color.

    Add to that a title like Wizard and Gone both have been re-issued to death on all formats so far its only a matter of time before WB transitions them into 4K.

    Because many, especially 3-strip, never had 4k resolution to begin with, as designed and printed.

    4k releases of many early films are a waste of effort.

    Think heavily massaged in order to hold an image together.

    We don’t want to see GWTW bg plates and mattes in 4k.

  289. Robert Harris

    Because many, especially 3-strip, never had 4k resolution to begin with, as designed and printed.

    4k releases of many early films are a waste of effort.

    Think heavily massaged in order to hold an image together.

    We don’t want to see GWTW bg plates and mattes in 4k.

    Ok if they could create a 4K transfer… then how is that different than seeing a film print projected?

    Isn't it true that film prints themselves have roughly the resolution at 4K?

    At what resolution do you think Wizard or Gone with the Wind hit the screen at?

  290. Powell&Pressburger

    Ok if they could create a 4K transfer… then how is that different than seeing a film print projected?

    Isn't it true that film prints themselves have roughly the resolution at 4K?

    At what resolution do you think Wizard or Gone with the Wind hit the screen at?

    Guessing, but certainly less than 2k. Far less.

    4k looks nothing like a 1939 dye transfer print.

  291. Powell&Pressburger

    …Isn't it true that film prints themselves have roughly the resolution at 4K?

    A 35mm release print in projection is typically somewhere around 720p, and that's for modern movies just before the transition to digital. The original camera negative has around 3-4K of real image detail, but that's nowhere near to what you would have ever seen in projection.

  292. Powell&Pressburger

    Ok if they could create a 4K transfer… then how is that different than seeing a film print projected?

    AFAIK, there are 4K DCP's available for both films, though I haven't seen them in person and have only found mention of them on the internet. As for whether or not it's overkill, I tend to side with Mr. Harris. You're talking about three strips of film combined to make the final image, which is simply not going to have the same level of detail as a single strip. Also, film grain structure and resolution improved a great deal after the time when these films were shot, so it's doubtful that we'd see the kind of jump in quality in a 4K transfer as you might think.

    EDIT: Over on the Film Tech Forum, there is a post from last year that actually lists two available 4K DCP's from different years, so they exist. Whether they were upscaled from 2K or were scanned at 4K, I don't know.

  293. Robert Harris

    Because many, especially 3-strip, never had 4k resolution to begin with, as designed and printed.
    4k releases of many early films are a waste of effort.
    .

    Since only UHD currently delivers something covering more or less the gamut of 35mm colour film and 10 bit data it's not a waste even if spatial detail is far below 4K and/or no colour is present. Rec 709 is not sufficient for colour and 8 bit is always compromised concerning optimising shadow and highlight detail at the same time. I'll take a 4K version with 10 bit any day over an 8 bit 1080p version of any film based source.

  294. Michel_Hafner

    Since only UHD currently delivers something covering more or less the gamut of 35mm colour film and 10 bit data it's not a waste even if spatial detail is far below 4K and/or no colour is present. Rec 709 is not sufficient for colour and 8 bit is always compromised concerning optimising shadow and highlight detail at the same time. I'll take a 4K version with 10 bit any day over an 8 bit 1080p version of any film based source.

    With all things being equal I fully agree, we also get full 1080p chroma resolution. With that being said we will only get so many releases each year and I would rather have releases from movies that also have a certain amount of detail, especially when they are readily available like for example Ben-Hur or How the West was Won.

  295. Robert Harris

    Guessing, but certainly less than 2k. Far less.

    4k looks nothing like a 1939 dye transfer print.

    Would you please expound on this?

    Worth

    A 35mm release print in projection is typically somewhere around 720p, and that's for modern movies just before the transition to digital. The original camera negative has around 3-4K of real image detail, but that's nowhere near to what you would have ever seen in projection.

    Are you saying the dupe print or the projection method is limited in detail?

  296. Patrick*R

    Are you saying the dupe print or the projection method is limited in detail?

    Both. There's a fair bit of generation loss going from the negative to IP to IN to release print, then there's also a loss of resolution due to the mechanics of film projection, where the image is never perfectly stable, unlike digital.

  297. Michel_Hafner

    I'm aware of that but it does not change the facts. These stills are not manipulated, they show what's on the discs.

    All I have to say is with the resolution apparently degraded dramatically "where's the beef"?

  298. Went today to see the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie in IMAX. There was a trailer for 2001 in IMAX with a date of August 24th. The trailer looked OK… it flashed by pretty quickly so hard to judge about color values. I assume this is the new 4K restoration. I cannot find anything on the internet about this… does anyone know anything?

  299. Jim*Tod

    Went today to see the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie in IMAX. There was a trailer for 2001 in IMAX with a date of August 24th. The trailer looked OK… it flashed by pretty quickly so hard to judge about color values. I assume this is the new 4K restoration. I cannot find anything on the internet about this… does anyone know anything?

    I'm looking for this in a local theater. Two months ahead of the UHD Blu Ray

  300. Jim*Tod

    Went today to see the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie in IMAX. There was a trailer for 2001 in IMAX with a date of August 24th. The trailer looked OK… it flashed by pretty quickly so hard to judge about color values. I assume this is the new 4K restoration. I cannot find anything on the internet about this… does anyone know anything?

    Thanks for the post about 2001.
    It’s been really confusing that dates and locations were never published for this restoration event after it was announced.
    The confusion continues to the infinite and beyond…

  301. usrunnr

    Am I alone in thinking that Warner Brothers could be more forthcoming about this release? Or is this SOP.

    Actually, only Warner Brothers is alone in that thinking.:cool:

  302. I think in the case of this particular film, and in light of the fact that this is its 50th Anniversary release and its first time on 4K UHD, we should be seeing more detailed information about it by now. Instead it's been a bit of a wild goose chase ever since the planned 4K release first came to light months ago. This, coupled with the cryptic and cautionary words from Robert Harris about what we're going to see, makes me less than optimistic that it's going to be up to snuff.

  303. Seems to me like Warner's is very nervous and worried that they let a major filmmaker have his head with a classic film because it's his favorite. It also seems like that filmmaker got in way over his head. As I have said I hope we are all wrong, but they are bringing this on themselves with lack of info. It reminds me of when studios refuse to screen movies for critics because they know it will get slammed, this feels very similar.

  304. What information are you guys looking for from Warner? Do we really usually get more information about this stuff for other releases? Seems like 9 times out of 10, no one knows that the 4K disc looks like til 1-2 weeks before it comes out.

  305. I just don't think they're ready to promote it – the release date isn't for another three months or so.

    There is apparently going to be an IMAX release of the movie for a week starting on August 24th – that would almost certainly be from whatever new digital master is being created. I would guess that Warner would start talking about the new disc around the time of that release, or perhaps after. It may just be smart business.

    By releasing the new 70mm prints without further details on home video versions or digital theatrical releases, people wanting to see "2001" on the big screen had to decide whether or not to go see it in 70mm right then and there – and that resulted in the reissue this year apparently outgrossing the last reissue from calendar year 2001-2002. I was stunned that the one week engagement in NYC was held over for six or seven weeks. I went to the late Friday show for the first three weeks and there was a bigger than expected crowd each time. I saw it in Boston a couple months later, and it was completely sold out for the showing I attended (and the one immediately afterwards as well). I think they handled the theatrical release brilliantly because the movie actually did make some money, which is basically unheard of in 2018 for repertory, and held on for more than a week or two, which is basically unheard of in 2018 for any kind of movie.

    The IMAX re-release sounds smart. The last week of August/first week of September is typically a dead zone for premium auditoriums like IMAX, because there's rarely any studio product worthy of those screens at that time, and content from earlier in the summer has already reached the end of its theatrical life cycle. For the past few years, IMAX has been experimenting with that calendar space, using it to re-run movies that were successful earlier in the year, and/or using it to show classics making their IMAX debut. It's still a dead week at the box office, though, so there's a limit to what they can make. But if they had announced IMAX before the 70mm run began, it would have killed demand for the 70mm.

    So maybe it's just a matter of wanting to allow the limited IMAX run to be its own thing before everyone's focus turns to the upcoming UHD.

  306. The 70mm prints and the 4K UHD release are two different animals, not from the same source. Besides, I'd be willing to bet that anyone willing to buy this film on 4K UHD is also willing to see it projected in a theater in 70mm or IMAX if given the chance. Cannibalization of disc sales would be negligible at worst.

    I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think this 50th Anniversary release is going to disappoint a lot of people.

  307. Robert Harris

    I believe the general public will be thrilled with the UHD release.

    Yes, the same general public that's happy with the tealification of the movie world, complains when their screen isn't totally filled, and enjoys watching colorized B&W movies. Sigh…

  308. Robert Harris

    I believe the general public will be thrilled with the UHD release.

    If you're including the HTF membership in that assessment then all the better, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not.

Leave a Reply