2001: A Space Odyssey is a 4K/UHD Release possible? (1 Viewer)

[Brian Kidd]

Agreed. But who is to say that the same thing can't be afforded to filmmakers, as well; just as long as we have all of the versions available and at our fingerstips within the BD formats. Take for example, Criterion's upcoming offering of "The New World".
I believe we'd be less up in arms if all versions remained available. Plus its damned interesting, too.

I agree. I don't mind different versions of films as long as all versions are readily available. I kind of enjoy having all three cuts of Close Encounters and Dawn of the Dead. I think it depends on the impetus behind the changes. If a longer version is simply a marketing device constructed by the studios, I find very little worth in it. In the case of Dawn of the Dead, we have what was essentially a rough cut, the director-approved theatrical cut, and a cut by Dario Argento, who stipulated that he be able to edit the European version when he helped put up the money for the production. Each of these cuts represents a unique assembly of the source material, with each having things about them worth seeing. Having the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil available is interesting because it shows how badly a film can be misunderstood by studio executives who think that they know better than the filmmakers as to what makes a "good film." In the case of 2001, Kubrick took the opportunity he was afforded by being Kubrick to remove scenes that he felt didn't gel with his vision. Very few people had seen the film at that point, so, for most people, they didn't miss what they didn't know existed. As someone who adores Kubrick's work, I would love to see these scenes, along with the excised material from The Shining and the pie fight from Dr. Strangelove, but I don't think they should be edited back into the film. If Kubrick had wanted them there, they wouldn't have been removed. That may sound hypocritical from someone who is upset that we don't have the original versions of the Star Wars films on Blu-ray, but those films were around and in the public consciousness for twenty years before Lucas started tinkering with them. Nobody took Star Wars away from him and, in the case of Empire and Jedi, he had complete control over those films during both production and editing. Alternate cuts of films are an interesting topic.

 

[PMF]

I don't mind different versions of films as long as all versions are readily available.[...] I think it depends on the impetus behind the changes. If a longer version is simply a marketing device constructed by the studios, I find very little worth in it. [...] That may sound hypocritical from someone who is upset that we don't have the original versions of the Star Wars films on Blu-ray, but those films were around and in the public consciousness for twenty years before Lucas started tinkering with them.

And that, too, is key. Marketing devices are a death-nail for me. You can only sell it to me if its something coming from the Director's intent or something uncovered from a vault, long thought to be gone or destroyed.
Public consciousness is also key. We, of course, crave to re-live those initial experiences and moments of impact.
Change is only welcomed if it doesn't mean eradicating the overall.
Your "unedited" Post is one that I agree with.

 

[Robert Harris]

And then there are other examples of a "Director's Cut".
Take, for example, "The Godfather, Part III".
I recall, upon the initial VHS release, a marketing of the product that boasted a "Director's Cut" with some 8,9 or 10 additional minutes.
Did it make the film better? I have no idea.
To my mind, I felt that "Godfather III" was rich in unfulfilled possibilities.
Many stories and themes were there, but crammed all into one film that seemingly would have benefited further were Coppolla and Puzo given some breathing room and many more months of time.
Maybe I'm romanticizing it, yet I can't help but wonder; had Paramount not been so anxious to get it out by Christmas Day, there might had been not one - but two - masterpiece films.

And how does everyone here feel about the theatrical film version of "Amadeus" vs. The Director's Cut?
Now, add into the mix playwright Peter Shaffer who, after the success of the film produced, yet, another revision of the stage play.

As for Stanley Kubrick, we can look to his final film of "Eyes Wide Shut" as, yet, another example.
The genius is right there for all to see, but one can only wonder where his last-minute final edits and tweaks would had taken this work.
I view "Eyes Wide Shut" as being akin to the handful of classical composers whose final works are presented as an "unfinished" symphony.
Of course, in the world of film, never have we yet seen a marketing campaign that would dare assume ticket sales, were they to advertise a director's final film as being "unfinished"; but that is how I approached "Eyes Wide Shut" and favorably judged it on those very merits.

Finally, there are those questions that also come with the restorations of films.
Take our resident archivist Robert A. Harris, for instance.
Rightfully, his approach is to maintain the dignity of what a late filmmakers original intents had been.
So, in this case, were RAH to restore "The Shining", "2001" or "Eyes Wide Shut", one can only wonder where his research of Mr. Kubrick would take him. I would imagine that Christiane Kubrick could supply many answers, not to mention the answers already supplied by Stanley Kubrick, himself; as I am certain both he and RAH had many rap sessions on his entire body of work, when first restoring "Spartacus".

I wonder if Mr. Harris is free to comment on what a Stanley Kubrick definitive might be, in terms of cuts, running times and aspect ratios on any or all of his works?

While SK's definitive cut of 2001 would be the final version, he was adamant that the original cut survive, as represented in masters.

I'm unable to speak to the other films, but keep in mind, when discussing aspect ratios for home video, his tendency was to go open matte on 35mm productions, based upon the size of TV screens available at the time.

 

[TravisR]

That may sound hypocritical from someone who is upset that we don't have the original versions of the Star Wars films on Blu-ray, but those films were around and in the public consciousness for twenty years before Lucas started tinkering with them. Nobody took Star Wars away from him and, in the case of Empire and Jedi, he had complete control over those films during both production and editing.

Even in 1977, Lucas was saying that he didn't get what he wanted with the movie due to the limits of technology. So while the movies weren't taken away from, he still had the feeling that he didn't achieve all that he wanted. All that being said, I wish he had made the originals available and I hope Disney does.

 

[PMF]

And then, from "The Shining", we've got "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy",
Even Mr. Torrance, page after page, couldn't decide just which format his words should take.
Of course, as we all know, he eventually went mad.

 

[PMF]

While SK's definitive cut of 2001 would be the final version, he was adamant that the original cut survive, as represented in masters. [...]

Fascinating.
I wonder why Stanley Kubrick was adamant that the original cut would survive when, at the same time, he arrived at his definitive cut?

 

[Brian Kidd]

Even in 1977, Lucas was saying that he didn't get what he wanted with the movie due to the limits of technology. So while the movies weren't taken away from, he still had the feeling that he didn't achieve all that he wanted. All that being said, I wish he had made the originals available and I hope Disney does.

I'm sure that lots of filmmakers who made Fantastic films often felt limited by the technology that was available at the time their films were made. Part of the magic of the original Star Wars films is that Lucas was able to gather people to him who moved technology forward in order to achieve remarkable effects for 1977. Limitations caused innovation. The crew assembled just to make the original Star Wars led to the creation of ILM, Pixar, and Photoshop among other projects that, without hyperbole, changed the face of both the cinematic and photographic arts. Certainly, nobody had the right to tell him that he couldn't go back and tinker with his films. I just wish that he had people who would have been gutsy enough to suggest that perhaps he shouldn't have messed with them. Maybe he did and he just decided to anyway. Who knows? In any case, the suppression of the original films in a concerted effort to remove them from the public consciousness is terrible. I'm grateful for everything he helped create, but I'm glad he's no longer the captain of the ship. I'd give my right arm to look over the Lucasfilm sales contract to see if there were any caveats forbidding the release of the original versions of the films. We'll just have to wait and see.

Off-topic again. Sorry. Since the materials are extant to provide a nice, new transfer of 2001 from 65mm, it seems like 4k television and projection is a decent financial reason for WB to foot the bill. The current Blu-ray is quite pretty, but knowing that it can be improved gets me very excited.

 

[PMF]

My first 1968 viewing of "2001" was at a Matinee.
Unfortunately, it was not in 70mm.
But, from the perspective of an 8 year-old me, it was damned near close; as I was sitting in the front row of a 35mm theater where the screen, itself, was very big.
Let me first start off by saying that all monkeys and chimpanzees tickled me with laughter when I was a child.
But the Kubrick simian was no laughing matter.
And, man, were they an angry lot.
Mesmerizing and, ultimately, frightening.
Upon my front row seating, when that leader ape raised his arm to strike down hard - with bone in hand and all teeth showing - I swore that the gargantuan "Dawn of Man" weapon was about to come down on my head.
At that near moment of impact, I leaped from my chair. I took cover. I ran up the darkened center aisle as fast as I could and towards the light of the lobby doors. And, brother, I was out of there.
Eventually, I saw "2001" upon its return engagement.
It is often said that a Kubrick film can be a life-changing experience. On so many fronts, this is not an understatement, by any means.
As it was, this very same Kubrick attribution continued to hold true with each successive film thereafter
Were there a "Likes" button to cast my vote for seeing a 70mm restoration of "2001", I would press it now.

 

[WillG]

While SK's definitive cut of 2001 would be the final version, he was adamant that the original cut survive, as represented in masters.

Hmm, seems pretty contrary to Kubrick's reputation of destroying anything he decided to excise.

 

[YanMan]

First and foremost, if there's a better "2001" ahead then bring it on.
With that said, YanMan...what is that other film title in contention with "2001" for your "top" of the list? [just for the fun of it].

Hah! I appreciate the interest in my personal opinions and preferences, but I was speaking more in terms of general critical consensus rather than my own personal "top" list, and I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of my preferences and end up embarrassing myself.

I would hope that WB still consider 2001 as a "prestige" title in their catalog that they would want to present in the best way possible and invest in preserving it in the best quality possible. The 50th anniversary presents a good opportunity to revisit the title, especially with a new format available (UHD).

 

[PMF]

How could "2001" be anything BUT a "prestige" title out of the WB's catalogue?
Their entire boxed set of Stanley Kubrick titles are a gem of an offering.
The only way to top that collection is to offer up a full-out restoration of "2001";
especially in light of Universal's slam-dunk BD of "Spartacus".
Competition and not being out-done by another studio should prove to be a good incentive.
Let's face it, 70mm rules.

 

[Keith Cobby]

The next version of 2001 I want to buy is UHD.

 

[Bill Huelbig]

I don't know if it is still on the net, but ten years back there was a LA newspaper clipping with a letter from Jon Davidson (WAY before he was producing ROBOCOP) circa mid68 where he bemoans all the cuts made in some detail (he was there to see 2001 opening day, I guess), and that fits with what other folks I've talked with said -- that the cuts really DID hurt the film (not sure that adding the subtitle in midfilm made a big dif either way.)

The Jon Davison letter to the New York Times, April 28, 1968, is attached. He's wrong about one thing: Kubrick added the title cards, not MGM.

 

[Bill Huelbig]

The Jon Davison letter to the New York Times, April 28, 1968, is attached. He's wrong about one thing: Kubrick added the title cards, not MGM.

Come to think of it, Davison blames MGM for cutting the film when it was completely Kubrick's decision, and he made all the cuts himself. A 1968 article from Life magazine addresses this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3lQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&lr=&rview=1&pg=PA20&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true

 

[Member 323668]

The next version of 2001 I want to buy is UHD.

Absolutely!

This is a key title for release on UHD, but, PLEASE, NO HDR "added"....

HDR was destroying the 4k scan of Ghostbusters I / II on Sony's UHD.

 

[Nelson Au]

I have the Criterion laserdisc of 2001 as well. Looks like a lot of people here would prefer a 4K release. But what if Criterion were to get the rights again? Perhaps they could create an acceptable master. Or is Warner in a much better position to make a release?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have the Criterion laserdisc of 2001 as well. Looks like a lot of people here would prefer a 4K release. But what if Criterion were to get the rights again? Perhaps they could create an acceptable master. Or is Warner in a much better position to make a release?

It seems extremely unlikely that Warner would allow the elements off the lot - if Criterion were to somehow release it, it would like be Warner's master.

I'd like Warner to redo this because the current DCP they send to theaters is not adequate in my opinion - it's a 2K master that letterboxes the film within a 1.85:1 frame, resulting in even less resolution. I've seen it projected in 70mm a bunch of times (as recently as a couple years ago) and I've seen the DCP projected about half a dozen times (also as recently as a couple years ago). The two just don't compared - a 70mm print of this movie, even a 35mm print, makes the DCP appear flat and lifeless. For a large format film, it deserves better. And the thing is, I have seen DCPs of older titles that look superior to this DCP, so I think they could do a better job at it now.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Warner doesn't really need Criterion's help, as their MPI facility is one of the best around. They could scan in 6K or 8K and downres if they felt it was necessary.

 

[Robert Harris]

Warner doesn't really need Criterion's help, as their MPI facility is one of the best around. They could scan in 6K or 8K and downres if they felt it was necessary.

The scanning would be performed in 8k at Fotokem. This is not a job for MPI.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Thanks for the heads up, RAH. How much TLC does the well loved and well used 65mm OCN need?