_2001: A Space Odyssey_ in 35mm — not 70mm — at the Arclight (but not the Dome), next week. UPDATE. (1 Viewer)

[Zen Butler]

Robert, I sent you a PM.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The best I can do is the three tickets together for Laura and me and that Dave clown. Maybe I can coordinate with Vince. We might end up being scattered throughout the Dome.

RobertR knows what I look like (but I've gotten back down to my rock&roll weight since last we met, very skinny).

 

[Peter Kline]

I wish I could be there but..... Have fun guys.


Peter

 

[RobertR]

I reserved a seat in the center between the exit signs on the first floor. Yes, everyone, Jack is an entity of the 60s, with the thin Hendrix/Jagger look (plus a beard).

 

[Jack Briggs]

An entity. I like being an entity.

 

[Zen Butler]

Okay, got my seat. Don't know if I'll be near any of you.
Robert will be riding up with me, but I'm sitting in a different location.


Not hard to spot(although, I will make it easy): I'll be the rugged fellow with all the tattoos, black Blade Runner shirt and facial jewelry.

Sent a PM to Grant (from Haight-Ashbury), he may be down here Wednesday.

 

[PeterK]

does 70mm = IMAX ?

 

[Haggai]

Count me in among the jealous ones. The AFI theater here in the DC area played Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm a couple of weeks ago, so maybe 2001 70 mm will come around here as well. It's an amazing experience to see a familiar classic in that format, with the images just leaping off the screen at you.

I always hated it when people said things like, "you've never seen it before if you haven't seen it this way!" I can obviously accept that when OAR is in question, but so few people ever have the opportunity to see anything in 70 mm that I find it really pretentious whenever someone says that, the implication (intentional or not, usually not) being that the rest of us are just jerking off, even as HT techonology has improved by light years over crappy VHS transfers on small or medium sized TVs. I would prefer to describe a 70 mm show of something like Lawrence or 2001 as "heightening" the experience.

 

[Zen Butler]

Haggai,

I hadn't really "seen" Lawrence of Arabia until I saw it in 70mm.

In the case of Lawrence of Arabia, a 70mm experience is one that you will never forget.

Like many have mentioned: complete darkness all around you as the sun rises to reveal the monstrous desert. It's one, if not the, most incredible experience I've had in a theater.

HT technology has brought us damn close though.

Haggai, please, with sugar on top, next time LOA comes your way. Get out and see it. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. You may not be the same after.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Attention, folks.

Late yesterday, I called the Arclight before I left from work. Needed to determine why the Arclight's system was not allowing me to log on and order tickets online.

So, I ended up talking to a human.

Turns out — despite the Arclight's use of AFI's promotional copy on its Website — that this is a 35mm print being screened. And it's being screened in one of the other Arclight auditoriums, and not in the Dome.

Reason being, according to the gentleman with whom I spoke ("Michael"), the only 70mm print available for booking at the time was older and badly scratched (apparently those new prints from three years ago are out of circulation). Instead, the AFI booked a privately owned, freshly struck 35mm print (the owner possesses this print by permission of "the studio," said Michael — and I am assuming here that it is Warner, not MGM).

Michael did not have any information regarding the audio track, but I would assume it's at least in magnetic, two-channel stereo.

So, this changes things for you. Do you want to come up here to see it in 35mm?

My friend Laura does, and so I may still go ahead and see this. (There are 146 seats remaining, out of 600.)

I feel as if I have mislead you all. Thus I am taking responsibility here. It still would be nice to meet up with everybody.

Also, Michael informed me that the studio wants Los Angeles 70mm screenings to be at The Egyptian, which is surprising, given how good our other 70mm venues are. I don't have any confirmation about this statement.

 

[Haggai]

Jack, that's too bad. Relative to my last post, I have seen 2001 in 35 mm, so less jealousy from me now.

Zen, I DID see Lawrence in 70 mm two weeks ago, sorry my post didn't make that more clear. It was indeed an astonishing experience, and the first sunrise was as mind-blowing as everyone says it is. But, I stand by my irritation whenever somebody says "you've never seen it AT ALL until you've seen it that way!" It makes a big difference, absolutely, but I don't like it when people who don't have access to theaters who show things in that format (i.e., most people in the US) are made to feel like posers.

 

[Peter Kline]

Jack, talking to a human can sometimes have advantages.
Sorry to hear that its only a 35mm print - even if it is a brand new one. However, to be honest, showing a 70mm print on a deeply (or moderately deeply curved at the Dome) screen does remove some image from view. The geometry makes it necessary to over project and you lose the top and bottom of the image, particularly in the center. Even if the 70mm print were "rectified" that would only compensate for the slight stretch on either side. Since there were no 70mm Cinerama prints that were rectified for "2001" that is a moot point. I think showing the film in 70mm on a flatter or only slightly curved screen such as the one at the Egyptian, provides a much better presentation. Just trying to make you feel better..........

 

[Jack Briggs]

Hey, even a 35mm print is better than in a home theater, in many ways. Though I did pass up on a recent 35mm run of this film at the New Beverly Cinema just a few blocks from me. What with the New Beverly's lousy sound and hard seats, I would much rather screen the DVD on my main HT system. Better sound, comparable image, albeit taking up much smaller real estate.

However, a new 35mm print screened in any of the other Arclight venues would be nice.

Again, sorry for the letdown. I will note, though, that the AFI promo copy used at Arclight's Website discusses the 70mm shoot. Which led me to think, well, obviously, they're running this thing in the Dome.

I blame faulty intelligence.

 

[PeterK]

If the movie was originally filmed on 35mm how is there a 70mm copy available?

 

[Peter Kline]

PeterK (nice name)
The film was shot in 70mm. There were reduction prints made to 35mm where theatres couldn't show 70mm films. Some films shot in 35mm were blown up to 70mm during the heyday of the format in the 60s and 70s to take advantage of the medium. Many so-called IMAX films now showing are original 35mm films blown up to 70mm for presentation.

 

[Zen Butler]

My ticket says it's playing in the

Upper 10

 

[PeterK]

So What kind of screen size are we talking here?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If it's the newer 35mm version, the print should contain analog Dolby Stereo, DTS and Dolby Digital, playback will be dependent on what the venue supports. They haven't made any prints (of anything) in magnetic stereo since 1984 or so.

I'm playing it in DTS...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, Peter, your sig message says it all.

So, how many still want to see this thing?

 

[Zen Butler]

Jack, I'm sorry this is such a disapointment for you.

Although, I have a decent enough rig, a 35mm presentation is always welcome.

So far Jack, RobertR and I are going and already have our seats reserved. Grant B(from Haight/Ash), will be at his spot in Long Beach, he is a possible.