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

[Nelson Au]

I'm amazed the Tyrell building model has survived and is on exhibit! I've seen photos of it during production. That's amazing!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm watching 2010, and I unashamedly love this movie. It's not 2001 - nothing could be - but it's such a good film in its own right. I love the characters and the performances - Roy Schieder, John Lithgow and Bob Balaban are all fantastic. And if 2001 felt like hard science and scientists examined coldly, 2010 is a warm and human look at how real people would handle the aftermath of the original film's events.

I love the Arthur C. Clarke cameo.

I think Peter Hyams is an underrated director and I wish he'd get more work today. I remember reading that one of Clarke's conditions for selling the movie rights was that he wanted a writer-producer-director who, like Kubrick, could oversee the entire project and be passionate about it. Hyams is also one of the few directors to serve as his own cinematographer. Hyams brings a certain wit and tempo to the film that suits the source material, but he knows when to stay out of the way and let the material - and Clarke and Kubrick's previous choices - guide his way. The Earthbound and Leonov scenes give Hyams room to develop an aesthetic in areas the original film didn't really touch. But when they're near and onboard Discovery and the monolith, Hyams honors and continues the eerie aesthetic that Kubrick captured.

Hyams really had an impossible task, making a sequel to one of the most respected and unusual films of all time, in an entirely more conventional manner as dictated by the source material. He had to make a film that was both an adaptation of a very literary book and a sequel to a very experiential film, honoring both without ruining the mystique of either. And I think he pulls it off.

 

[Keith Cobby]

2010 is a great film and a worthy sequel to 2001. I especially like the first half hour and the scenes between Dr Floyd and his wife and son when they discuss him going away for a long time. Easily Roy Scheider's best work.

 

[Tino]

I've been a fan of Hyam's since Capricorn One blew me away in 1978.

I've always loved 2010. The scenes at the end between Bowman and his wife and mother always choke me up.

 

[dpippel]

For some reason 2010 has never really connected with me. In particular, I find the voiceovers to be clumsy and ineffectual. Not only did Hyams feel the need to spell everything out, Scheider often sounds like he's reading an instruction manual for a washing machine. The effects haven't aged too well either IMO.

It HAS been quite a few years since I've seen the film, so perhaps I should give it another go.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Hyams called Kubrick to essentially get his blessing before he set out to make 2010. According to Hyams Kubrick told him to absolutely make the film and to do his own thing with it. So, as far as I know Kubrick did not take any issue with Hyams making the film and was very supportive.

2010 is a different animal than 2001. It is a film that seeks to give concrete answers to questions and mysteries that 2001 raised. I don't think that makes it a bad film just a different film. I also think even though it does this it does it in such a way that does not in any way diminish 2001. So, to me Hyams seems pretty respectful of Kubrick's film.

This is quite different than films like Prometheus and Covenant completely altering the "universe" the original film took place in to provide answers to questions or mysteries that helped make the first film the classic it was. I know a lot of fans are pretty mad about the direction those films went in as follow-ups to Alien but to me I just feel like I will ignore them and just enjoy the first film as it is. I think some fans of 2001 were also upset by 2010 but I enjoyed both films even though they are very different and the filmmakers had totally different goals when they set out to make them.

 

[Mark McSherry]

Glenn Erickson writes-

"Although the link is a couple of years old, Joe Dante has circulated it again and I find it fascinating enough to re-recommend: 'NZ Pete's' exhaustive article at his Matte Shot - a Tribute to Golden Era Special FX page, about Stanley Kubrick's 2001: One Mans Incredible Odyssey. It's still unsurpassed, methinks."

 

[marshman1138]

Glenn Erickson writes-

"Although the link is a couple of years old, Joe Dante has circulated it again and I find it fascinating enough to re-recommend: 'NZ Pete's' exhaustive article at his Matte Shot - a Tribute to Golden Era Special FX page, about Stanley Kubrick's 2001: One Mans Incredible Odyssey. It's still unsurpassed, methinks."

Yeah, this is a great link. Good ol' Glenn!

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Hardly. In space no one can hear you scream.

Elements have been well-loved, and over-printed before the arrival of 5243, with numerous replacement dupes, and damaged sections.

Nonetheless, there should be no problems.

Please keep us updated on the progress ;-)

 

[Robert Harris]

Please keep us updated on the progress ;-)

Not my project.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For those in the NYC-area, the Museum Of The Moving Image in Astoria will be screening "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 70mm on August 3rd - August 6th:

http://www.movingimage.us/programs/2017/07/19/detail/see-it-big-70mm/

They will also be screening a brand new 70mm print of "Lawrence Of Arabia" later in August.

I'll be attending the 8/6 screening of "2001" at 6:30pm. It's likely that they'll be showing the same print they played the past few years, which is generally in good shape, though it does have some ugly green scratches which briefly run down the center of the image as Dave is arguing with HAL from inside the pod. And the screening room at the Museum, while of a decent size, isn't big enough to reveal the full potential of 70mm. But I'm not certain there's any venue left in NYC that could properly display 70mm on a screen large enough to match the screen sizes that 70mm used to play on. There are theaters that still show 70mm (and will be showing Dunkirk in that format this summer) but are relatively small screens. But at any rate, "2001" on the big screen in 70mm is worth seeing even if it's not playing on a giant sized screen.

 

[dpippel]

Jealousy sets in...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Jealousy sets in...

Come visit!

I'm jealous of L.A. - a small theater chain there got Warner to make them their very own 70mm print, and they plan on showing it a few times a year between their two or three locations. It's still coming off the same faded/worn elements as the ones that circulate elsewhere, but in theory it should stay in pristine condition for longer with less damage.

 

[dpippel]

Come visit!

I'm jealous of L.A. - a small theater chain there got Warner to make them their very own 70mm print, and they plan on showing it a few times a year between their two or three locations. It's still coming off the same faded/worn elements as the ones that circulate elsewhere, but in theory it should stay in pristine condition for longer with less damage.

Interesting! I appreciate the offer to visit Josh, really, but L.A. is a LOT closer to me. I may just have to ferret out one of these screenings and take the cheapo flight just to see it. I've never had the privilege of watching 2001 in a theater. Must be quite a treat!

 

[Paul Rossen]

For those in the NYC-area, the Museum Of The Moving Image in Astoria will be screening "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 70mm on August 3rd - August 6th:

http://www.movingimage.us/programs/2017/07/19/detail/see-it-big-70mm/

They will also be screening a brand new 70mm print of "Lawrence Of Arabia" later in August.

I'll be attending the 8/6 screening of "2001" at 6:30pm. It's likely that they'll be showing the same print they played the past few years, which is generally in good shape, though it does have some ugly green scratches which briefly run down the center of the image as Dave is arguing with HAL from inside the pod. And the screening room at the Museum, while of a decent size, isn't big enough to reveal the full potential of 70mm. But I'm not certain there's any venue left in NYC that could properly display 70mm on a screen large enough to match the screen sizes that 70mm used to play on. There are theaters that still show 70mm (and will be showing Dunkirk in that format this summer) but are relatively small screens. But at any rate, "2001" on the big screen in 70mm is worth seeing even if it's not playing on a giant sized screen.

I'm sure that the huge IMAX screen at the Lincoln Sq theatres in Manhattan can do justice to any 70mm showing.. and while I've not been there in a number of years there may be a second auditorium at that venue that can do justice to 70mm as well. I have not seen 2001 in any NYC theater since it's Cinerama showings in 1968 at the Loews and Warner Cinerama Theaters.

 

[marshman1138]

Not my project.

Maybe a little lobbying on your part to make it your project!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm sure that the huge IMAX screen at the Lincoln Sq theatres in Manhattan can do justice to any 70mm showing.. and while I've not been there in a number of years there may be a second auditorium at that venue that can do justice to 70mm as well. I have not seen 2001 in any NYC theater since it's Cinerama showings in 1968 at the Loews and Warner Cinerama Theaters.

That IMAX screen is huge, but the dimensions aren't right for IMAX -- it has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1. There would be huge amounts of dead space above and below the frame. It would be better than nothing for sure, but I don't think it would be an ideal presentation.

Their main non-IMAX auditorium shows 70mm and it's a decent sized house, but I'd still consider it on the smaller size for how large the actual auditorium/number of seats the room has - the screen is too small, and the back row too far away, for a screen of that size in my view.

I'm definitely nitpicky about this stuff, but films like "2001" were meant to be shown in giant auditoriums and the simple truth is that a 50 year old film isn't going to bump the new Spider-Man out of the IMAX auditorium. It's entirely possible that "2001" may never play again in 70mm at a NYC venue that's comparable to how it was originally screened. It's a problem that other restorations and repertory screening have run up against. For example, the latest restoration of My Fair Lady looks outstanding, but by most accounts, the limited theatrical screenings ranged from lackluster to disastrous. Commercial theaters have forgotten how to show "roadshow" style presentations and don't care to relearn, and the audience for repertory is generally so small that no theater will give up a premium auditorium, even for one showing on the least popular day of the week, to show it. So we're lucky to have museums like the Moving Image that can at least project 70mm and now how and when the close the curtains and dim the lights. I wish they had a much bigger screen.

 

[john a hunter]

We had that problem here in Sydney with Hateful 8 with no one around to show some of the theatres how to run 70.
However they must have found someone as the showing I went to was perfect.
Unfortunately the same theatre is not showing Dunkirk in 70 but from a DCP.
Perhaps their 70 wizard is not longer with us
It's a vanishing art.

 

[Osato]

Time to watch 2001 and 2010!

I saw a 2001 on a big screen a few years ago and it gave me an all new appreciation.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Not my project.

I hope that means 'There is a project, but it's "Not my project" '.