Pre-Order 2001: A Space Odyssey (4k UHD) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

Yesterday I received my 4K UHD + Blu Ray + Digital steelcase Best Buy 2001 set from a seller on eBay. It arrived double boxed with plenty of bubble wrap so no dents. It’s still shrink wrapped and has the Best Buy stickers on the shrink wrap. I think I made out OK as the seller didn’t seem to be that greedy and I won the auction at under $50 and had free shipping, he even rushed it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

My kids bought me this for Christmas. Haven't sampled the 4K yet b/c I don't have the necessary equipment, but I can say that the BD is leaps and bounds over the original release. It looks and sounds gorgeous.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I agree, the BD is a major upgrade and the movie finally looks and sounds as it should at home.

I did future-proof myself by getting the UHD version. I now have a 4K TV, but no UHD player nor plans to get one (I watch all of my movies on my projector, so that the TV is 4K-capable is kinda irrelevant to my movie watching) but I couldn't resist the temptation to redeem the 4K code and sample that version with the TV's built-in streaming capabilities. Though I'd never watch the entire film on my TV while I have a projector, the few minutes I did see in 4K looked utterly fantastic. (But overall appeared very similar to the new Blu-ray.)

 

[Nelson Au]

Interesting Josh. Now that I finally have the 4K UHD disc of 2001, I don’t have a 4K display to watch it on. But my player is capable of playing 4K discs! I’m watching for the first time now, the first season of Westworld on the 4K UHD discs, but the player downsamples to regular blu ray to the display. I’ve looked at both discs, the 4K ans the regular blu ray and both looks great. Westworld is quite engrossing too.

Sounds like though if I were to watch 2001 on the new regular blu ray, it’s going to be quite a good image and improvement over the first blu ray.

 

[Carabimero]

I've seen the 4K and it looks gorgeous.

So I have to ask: Where was all the negativity and fake news about this release coming from? And why?

 

[Wayne_j]

I think press releases for this release which kept mentioning Nolan mislead people to think that this was somehow the Nolan non-restoration.

 

[Carabimero]

I think press releases for this release which kept mentioning Nolan mislead people to think that this was somehow the Nolan non-restoration.

I agree, but it seemed more than that. Some people apparently in the know also believed the worst.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Sounds like though if I were to watch 2001 on the new regular blu ray, it’s going to be quite a good image and improvement over the first blu ray.

Absolutely! Huge improvement. The picture quality is a huge improvement, and having the original 1968 soundtrack mix as an option is also a major improvement. I'm very, very, very happy with how the new Blu-ray version looks!

So I have to ask: Where was all the negativity and fake news about this release coming from? And why?

I think part of it started with Warner. Clearly, they wanted the sales boost that came from having Christopher Nolan's name associated with the project. Their press release stated something like, "Building on the earlier Christopher Nolan 70mm release, this new disc..." which is what caused some controversy. I think the intention was to convey that this release was hoping to build on the momentum started by the 70mm release in bringing the film back into the public consciousness in a big way; but I think what some people read was "Oh, so they're taking that unrestored print with all the damage and making that the disc." I don't know why people were so quick to believe that. There is absolutely zero evidence of Warner doing anything like that in recent years, and given that their current physical media policy is "perfection or nothing at all," it was personally mind-boggling to me to imagine why anyone would think Warner would suspend that policy for this one release.

It was even more mind boggling after this 4K digital restoration was released theatrically in IMAX in August for all to see. There were numerous firsthand reports from people who went and saw this in IMAX and could attest to the quality of the restoration work done. It was obvious that this was the master that would be used on the disc. Heck, I was one of the loudest voices here, talking about how great it looked, and there was a vocal contingent that didn't want to hear what I was saying and continued to act as if the source of the 4K master that was going to be used on the disc was an unknown variable.

I also noticed that we had some people show up on HTF who had either never been here before, or who had posted like once in all of the time they were here, that suddenly wanted to talk about "2001" and how the new release was going to be a disaster. I do not know where these people came from or what their motivation was, but it struck me as being pretty strange. And whenever one of these new people would show up, it would whip the crowd into a frenzy, and the whole misinformation cycle would start over.

To quote HAL, I've never seen anything quite like it.

 

[Bill McCamy]

In a perfect world, well, my perfect world, the digital restoration of "2001: a space odyssey" would be shown annually at my local (true) IMAX theater. I've never seen anything quite like it.

 

[Carabimero]

I also noticed that we had some people show up on HTF who had either never been here before.../

I was thinking just the opposite: the voices supposedly in the know who were also drinking the Kool-Aid and pronouncing doom. That's what blows my mind.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yeah, there was some of that too. Crazy times.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In a perfect world, well, my perfect world, the digital restoration of "2001: a space odyssey" would be shown annually at my local (true) IMAX theater. I've never seen anything quite like it.

Agreed!

 

[Carabimero]

One thing still puzzles me: On the BD box art cover, the corridor of Discovery is white, but apparently the same scene on the restoration is not white; it appears bathed with amber/orange light. Which is correct?

 

[Tom St Jones]

Had meant to see "2001" for its 50th anniversary all year. Finally did it, literally in the final hours of 2018 on New Year's Eve.. Had to watch it on my 2007 Blu-ray, unfortunately, as I've yet to pick up this new release. (Don't get me wrong, the old Blu was no slouch, but am looking forward to the new one).

 

[Britton]

Absolutely! Huge improvement. The picture quality is a huge improvement, and having the original 1968 soundtrack mix as an option is also a major improvement. I'm very, very, very happy with how the new Blu-ray version looks!

There is absolutely zero evidence of Warner doing anything like that in recent years, and given that their current physical media policy is "perfection or nothing at all," it was personally mind-boggling to me to imagine why anyone would think Warner would suspend that policy for this one release.

I definitely agree the inclusion of the 1968 soundtrack is great and the WB did a fantastic job getting it on the disc. Like you, I didn't think an unrestored Nolan version or an "orange and teal" Nolan hit job was going to be what we got.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that they have a policy of "perfection or nothing at all" due to the issue with the fade (that was thankfully resolved) and the bad sync of the remix during the opening credits (not fixed).

This release is unquestionably the go to version now, but the 1968 audio is the only thing saving it from being a disaster IMHO because that opening credit sequence is so iconic and obviously set to "Also Sprach Zarathustra". The studio is treating the remix as the default audio, so I really hope it gets corrected for future home video releases and especially theatrical showings.

 

[CarlosMeat]

I've seen the 4K and it looks gorgeous.

So I have to ask: Where was all the negativity and fake news about this release coming from? And why?

I will second essentially all that Josh has said but to add the teal treated trailer scared me along with Nolan's name and how Dunkirk looked with a similar teal overlay. Additionally, Robert was being a little cagy about what he knew and the few things he was saying were quite mixed in their implications.I love 2001 it is one of my favorite films of all time. Also, I'm no spring chicken so I assume this is it for 2001 so I was hoping it looked as good as possible and wouldn't get the teal and orange blockbuster look so common with todays film and the way the trailer looked. I took the train over to Chicago and saw the 4K Laser IMAX presentation after the 4K DCP had been shown in Europe and I was educated here that this was almost surely the source for the UHD HDR version we would get. I certainly felt much better.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Josh! Your endorsement of the Blu Ray version is akin to a RAH endorsement where 2001 is concerned.

And I’m glad this 4K UHD + Blu Ray + Digital set with the red UPC label is the version with the fade fixed, if my understanding is correct.

 

[Britton]

And I’m glad this 4K UHD + Blu Ray + Digital set with the red UPC label is the version with the fade fixed, if my understanding is correct.

You are correct sir! Red UPC = fade.

 

[Nelson Au]

Britton.

Thanks!

 

[Brian Husar]

Absolutely! Huge improvement. The picture quality is a huge improvement, and having the original 1968 soundtrack mix as an option is also a major improvement. I'm very, very, very happy with how the new Blu-ray version looks!



I think part of it started with Warner. Clearly, they wanted the sales boost that came from having Christopher Nolan's name associated with the project. Their press release stated something like, "Building on the earlier Christopher Nolan 70mm release, this new disc..." which is what caused some controversy. I think the intention was to convey that this release was hoping to build on the momentum started by the 70mm release in bringing the film back into the public consciousness in a big way; but I think what some people read was "Oh, so they're taking that unrestored print with all the damage and making that the disc." I don't know why people were so quick to believe that. There is absolutely zero evidence of Warner doing anything like that in recent years, and given that their current physical media policy is "perfection or nothing at all," it was personally mind-boggling to me to imagine why anyone would think Warner would suspend that policy for this one release.

It was even more mind boggling after this 4K digital restoration was released theatrically in IMAX in August for all to see. There were numerous firsthand reports from people who went and saw this in IMAX and could attest to the quality of the restoration work done. It was obvious that this was the master that would be used on the disc. Heck, I was one of the loudest voices here, talking about how great it looked, and there was a vocal contingent that didn't want to hear what I was saying and continued to act as if the source of the 4K master that was going to be used on the disc was an unknown variable.

I also noticed that we had some people show up on HTF who had either never been here before, or who had posted like once in all of the time they were here, that suddenly wanted to talk about "2001" and how the new release was going to be a disaster. I do not know where these people came from or what their motivation was, but it struck me as being pretty strange. And whenever one of these new people would show up, it would whip the crowd into a frenzy, and the whole misinformation cycle would start over.

To quote HAL, I've never seen anything quite like it.

Yeah, what happened to that guy who was saying this is a lost film and was writing novels about how this is bad and what Kubrick wanted. He has stopped posting and hasn't posted on any other threads.