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

[bujaki]

We are your HTF family, Shakeel. Fight, fight, and surpass this trial soon.

 

[haineshisway]

we have to keep life in perspective. just as this rare wonderful opportunity/experience is nearing completion i may not be able to make it out in person as i fallen seriously ill. it's a long road back to a good state of health and am so looking forward to what shall be released. i have faith in the Warner and also the guidance of the deep information wealth that mr harris has repeatedly brought to us. my only "disappointment" might be that the legendary mr trumbull is unlikely to have his documentary made.
i will continue to follow this forum which is the best out here in my humble opinion with so many fine people involved with respectful honest thoughts.

reagards,

Wishing you the most excellent vibes and xylophones for a speedy recovery from whatever is ailing you.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

I guess I should state first I am neither a Nolan fan nor a Michael Bay fan but I can certainly see a clear difference in their work. I don't know what it means when you say Nolan's films are "baseless" so, I don't know how to comment on that. I do agree with you that both Nolan and Bay are "blockbuster" filmmakers and their films are expected to do, and usually do, big business. So, to some extent they are working with a similar set of circumstances but Nolan much of the time seems to be able to make films that are more interesting than stuff Bay churns out. Everything is a matter of personal taste though.

I also think it is pretty clear if you want orange and teal Bay is your guy. Of the Nolan films I have seen I don't think he loves those colors as much as he loves black.

I was watching Doubt on tv last night and everyone in that movie looks jaundiced because of teal and orange. The point being, teal and orange isn't a Michael Bay thing, it's an industry thing. It's in EVERY SINGLE FILM in varying degrees but it is there, Nolan personally loves it and it's very noticeable in all of his films. There is nothing interesting about Nolan films to me, maybe 15 years ago when I hadn't really delved into the golden age of Hollywood, but at this point, his films are beyond banal to me.

 

[nara]

I can’t respond to that and not risk being moderated.

 

[Robert Harris]

I was watching Doubt on tv last night and everyone in that movie looks jaundiced because of teal and orange. The point being, teal and orange isn't a Michael Bay thing, it's an industry thing. It's in EVERY SINGLE FILM in varying degrees but it is there, Nolan personally loves it and it's very noticeable in all of his films. There is nothing interesting about Nolan films to me, maybe 15 years ago when I hadn't really delved into the golden age of Hollywood, but at this point, his films are beyond banal to me.

Kudos for being one of the few people who gets this, and brings it to the fore.

The reason, however, has nothing to do with a filmmaker’s desires, but rather, budgeting, and the combining of two lines, raw stack, ie camera negative, with the production of separation masters, a budget buster.

Since 1983, when Kodak re-released their original black & white negative stock, originally used with two-color Technicolor, matrix stock, and what was known as Kalmus positive stock, the industry was able to produce far less expense protection masters, by simply running a b/w fine grain, without separating.

This is precisely what led to the teal/ orange situation, having nothing however, to do with the fact that the new 2001 prints have that slight Nolan effect.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I was watching Doubt on tv last night and everyone in that movie looks jaundiced because of teal and orange. The point being, teal and orange isn't a Michael Bay thing, it's an industry thing. It's in EVERY SINGLE FILM in varying degrees but it is there, Nolan personally loves it and it's very noticeable in all of his films. There is nothing interesting about Nolan films to me, maybe 15 years ago when I hadn't really delved into the golden age of Hollywood, but at this point, his films are beyond banal to me.

On Doubt, I assume you mean the film with Meryl Streep. It's been a while since I have seen it but I believe it was meant to be a cold looking film. I don't recall it being particularly colorful but it was a good picture I thought.

On teal and orange...yes, I know it is not just a Michael Bay thing however, I think Bay seems one of the biggest fans of it. I did go and read what I think is one of the key articles on it that gets referenced on the internet and the blame seems to be on the people that color grade pictures mostly. It seems some people just blame it on people being lazy and not wanting to have to color grade the entire film so they just set the controls for a wonderfully contrast-y teal and orange. I guess in our high def world...not really that we are all high and deaf...the orange and teal thing just strikes some people as super sexy.

I mean sure there are modern filmmakers that like the blue and orange contrast thing and intentionally make that choice but I would say what provokes the "teal fury" in people is when they feel that somebody has changed the color grading of an older film.

So, you don't dig Nolan...or you have outgrown him...the relationship went bad when you discovered there were other older films out there to flirt with. I get it and that's fine. Truth be told, if you went through my collection of films it is mostly all films made before 1980. So, I am in the same boat. I love the older films more than the newer films.

I don't want to badly derail this thread...which it seems a lot of people already don't like...so if we are going to discuss Nolan we should probably do that in a thread that relates to him or his films.

To turn this back to 2001 though and older films I will say this...

I think there is a big difference between older films and I guess we could say for the sake of argument films made post 2000. Here's what I think the big difference is, in older films the writing and the acting were important, even in what were the big mainstream releases. In newer films, particularly after the year 2000 in "mainstream films", the acting and writing are far less important. Instead the effects and gags are the most important.

Now here's the thing, 2001 becomes an interesting example. While the dialogue in 2001 is primarily not important, except for perhaps HAL, and the acting is mostly pretty flat with the human characters...this is all entirely intentional to serve how Kubrick is actually telling and constructing the story.

I think some people feel that 2001 is also a film all about the effects...which to this day do remain quite beautiful...but it is also a brilliant and elegantly constructed story. It's no small feat that this happens without Kubrick using the dialogue the human characters speak to tell the tale. It's actually kind of funny how much he goes out of his way NOT TO have the human characters talk about what is going on. The section of the film with Dr. Floyd being the key example of this. When Floyd arrives on the space station he calls his daughter and has a conversation about her birthday. Then he has a conversation where he intentionally says nothing with the Russian and the women he has drinks with. Then when he gets to the moon and he enters the briefing room Kubrick cuts away from that before the briefing even begins. So, we just see the room. Then when they are on the shuttle to the site where the monolith is they say basically nothing about this amazing discovery and end up talking about sandwiches.

So, the audience is never thrown some sort of dialogue to tell them what is happening and the characters explain nothing for our benefit. The biggest bit of dialogue in the film where the human characters actually talk about something that tells the audience what is going on is when Bowman and Poole talk about what is going on with HAL. That's it in terms of human characters explaining anything for the sake of advancing the story. I believe this is in the film because Kubrick did want to make sure the audience understood the conflict between HAL and the crew of the Discovery. The interactions then between Bowman and HAL become the most dramatic character conflict in the film and HAL, the computer, expresses far more than Bowman ever does. Once HAL is silenced we are on our own again with pure visual storytelling.

So, it is interesting the way that Kubrick in this film does not put the emphasis on the acting and dialogue but instead tells his story through the visuals. The actors, outside of Douglas Rain the voice of HAL, really play everything sort of flat and say practically nothing that relates to the plot. This is the only film where Kubrick does this. We certainly get acting, sometimes overacting, and dialogue aplenty in his other pictures.

So, you could say that Kubrick sort of devalues acting and dialogue in 2001 and contrast that to how acting and dialogue in many of today's mainstream films has been devalued...particularly in things like superhero films. In 2001 Kubrick did not cast big stars, uses his actors in ways that do not require them to give stunning performances, and cuts the dialogue down to a bare minimum.

In a superhero movie today, they don't need big stars, the dialogue is utter drivel, the suit and the effects do all the heavy lifting...but there is a difference and it's a big one...Kubrick did this to enhance the way he was telling his story and it served to challenge the audience to follow along and think...in today's films when they throw the audience some dialogue it is to tell the audience what is happening or for a gag.

So, where Kubrick asked his audience to think with what he was doing they do the complete opposite now...they shovel a line out so the audience knows what is happening and does not have to think or just to make them chuckle.

 

[CarlosMeat]

The reason, however, has nothing to do with a filmmaker’s desires, but rather, budgeting, and the combining of two lines, raw stack, ie camera negative, with the production of separation masters, a budget buster.


This is precisely what led to the teal/ orange situation, having nothing however, to do with the fact that the new 2001 prints have that slight Nolan effect.

Is this related to the tealing of the Final Cut of Blade Runner ?

 

[Robert Harris]

For those wondering when the changes were made to the original negative, bringing the film to the version, we now know, the re-cutting was performed on April 8-11, 1968, with the added material going in on the 11th.

For perspective, the film opened in Washington, D.C. on April 2, in NYC on April 3, and in LA on April 4, so very few prints were affected (ie. re-cut), which would have been performed within a week.

New prints would have been in production, on or about the 12th of April, for those reels affected by changes.

 

[SAhmed]

I did not mean to derail the conversation. I am however very humbled and honored by everyone's thoughts and prayers - you guys are the best!. I will try to post elsewhere an update on my health as I recover due to an undiscovered large thorasic spinal mass which over a period of about 6 hours left me with total paralysis from my waist down. A week after emergency surgery I can now wiggle my toes and move my feet a little - hard work ahead. Enough here but heartfelt thanks to you all.

Regards,

 

[ArnoldLayne]

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...lable-for-preorder.356390/page-5#post-4624024