2001 coming back in 70mm, unrestored

Was at the AFI screening the night Keir Dullea, but a tardy start along with AC that was underperforming for a completely full theater tired me out (the film didn't end until nearly 11pm) and I had to cut out before the Q&A portion. The recent book Space Odyssey is a fantastic read for anyone who's a fan of the film.

My buddy who stayed took notes, and I thought they might be of interest - he gave me permission to share. Notes include a remark about the sweater announcement someone mentioned earlier!

• The host introduced him during the closing credits but the final rendition of The Blue Danube kept rising up in the background, interrupting the conversation.
• He got a surprising phone invitation for the part after filming Bunny Lake is Missing.
• Kubrick was a dream to work with as opposed to Otto Preminger, who was a nightmare.
• Hal’s voice was to be Martin Balsam (too New York), then Nigel Davenport (too British), then Douglas Rain. The person who read Hal on the set had a cockney accent. Dullea read a Hal line in a Michael Caine voice and it was hysterical.
• He modeled his performance during the “Daisy” scene on Burgess Meredith’s character’s murdering Lenny in the film version of Of Mice and Men.
• During Apollo 11 he was invited to a network news studio, where he met Buster Crabbe! Later he met Arthur C. Clarke, who cried during the moon landing.
• Lockwood came up with the lip reading idea; Dullea suggested the shattered glass scene.
• The airlock scene was filmed with the hatch and airlock in the ceiling. Since he didn’t have a space helmet, he had to perform the stunt himself. His suit was attached to a harness. A roustabout dropped him from the pod with a knotted rope, then jumped off a platform to pull him up, then dropped him again.
• The final stargate shots of landscape were false color images of Utah.
• His favorite parts of the film are in The Dawn of Man: when the ape tips his head when he gets the idea about using the bone as a tool; and the bone morphing into the orbiting nuclear weapon.
• He underplayed Bowman at first because in the film the two astronauts had been together for months and had nothing left to say to each other. Before filming they went over their extensive psychological profiles with Kubrick. As Hal started acting up, Bowman started showing real emotion.
• He said all of the food tasted the same. In the dinner preparation scene, Lockwood was sitting upside down and harnessed to his chair. Some of the goopy food fell to the floor and took an hour to clean up.
• The host recommended a Douglas Trumbull interview with WTOP that appeared this week.
• Someone asked about his chess rating. He said he doesn’t play but he’s been told that there’s a chess mistake in the movie that foreshadows future problems with Hal.
• He wasn’t in the audience tonight (“They offered me dinner and I was hungry!”) but said he saw it again in New York a couple of weeks ago. He learns something new every time.
• About that sweater announcement: About Kubrick as a master detailer: several years ago, his late wife noticed that one of the Russian women’s sweaters disappears from one scene to another on the space station. Apparently Kubrick noticed this as well and added an intercom notice about a “recovered sweater” to the final audio.
• He wasn’t invited to perform in 2010. He had to contact the studio directly about the part.
• Dullea loved Benson’s book (Space Odyssey) and said he learned a lot from it.

 

Hal tells bowman that its checkmate, but he actually still had a chance to win.

 

Never noticed this!!!

 

I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on a UHD player and projector, though I'd like to see more 4k films available. The first Blu-ray I bought was "2001," and that may be the first UHD title I get. Let's hope they get the color correct this time. I wish Criterion could get another crack at it.

 

Yep. If I hear good things about the 4K release, this might be the one that pushes me to upgrade my gear so I can play it.

 

I'll stop when I'm dead.

For TV shows or films like "Moonrise Kingdom" or "Ghost World" (), an upconverted DVD copy is fine with me. But for major classics like "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia," for example, I'll always be looking to upgrade.

 

That's partly true. Some of it was shot from an airplane over Monument Valley, but the bulk of it was filmed over remote areas of Scotland.

 

I suppose, but I experienced "Lawrence" burn out on my blu ray purchase. I men, it always looks great. And that time it looked a little greater. Maybe I need new glasses.

 

I am trying to understand this. So it looked less great as time went on?

When I saw 2001, even though I have seen it probably between 15 and 20 times (I really don't know honestly, and that may or may not be an exaggeration), after this recent showing I found myself like a little kid all over again. While I watched it a lot closer than I ever have and paid particular close attention to facial detail and most importantly expressions. I always loved the subtle pissed off look when he has to let his co-worker go to save his own ass.

When people say to me....I watch the movie, it doesn't matter how I see it...I just slap my forehead and think...man glad I don't think like that.

Every minute detail captures more of the original source. Out of all the upgrades I ever spent money on, 2001 is an easy one. I think I have bought it what...4 times? Equates to around 50 bucks at best for arguably one of the greatest cinematic peaks of all time. Dude, that is drinking money at money at best. Hell yes worth another upgrade (and if some 12K version comes out after and I read that it is good using yet another transfer and some better tech...I will chuck the 4K and gladly upgrade again).

This movie inspires me, and it inspired me through this last watch. To each his own.

 

Let me clarify. Not drinking money. Gene Simmons isn't a drinker. Gene Simmons is an eating and sex money at best.

 

I agree that the present Blu-ray is very good, especially considering it was released in 2007. The colors are a little less saturated than the new 70mm print, but some scenes are close. The area that the Blu-ray exceeds the 70mm is in detail, and there may be more detail in some scenes than what was expected to be seen by moviegoers in 1968. I believe the Blu-ray used the same source as the new 70mm print. There are the complaints of digital sharpening on the Blu-ray, but in my opinion it is minimal.

 

Where are you getting this?

The bluray is a 2K quality at best. There is no comparison with a chemical processed print which is a organic footprint of an original source as opposed to a flat scan using sensor tech that cannot produce 3D results.

An assault of chemical molecule process can and does capture little nuances that go far beyond that. The fact that were are talking about a 70 mm print all I can do is respectfully say....HELL NO, the bluray is not even close. The 4K won't be either, but of course there will be the digital fans that will claim it because they just love digital processing...and if they don't like it, just blame Nolan. That is all they do.

I am looking forward to a smart clean-up and enjoying the ability to play it home for years to come, but to compare it to a pure analog experience? Uh, no.

 

I thought I'd share a few pics of Keir Dullea that I took at the AFI Silver Theater (Silver Spring, MD) opening night.
All shots are with my hand-held cell phone, using available light and sometimes zoomed in, so a couple of them are fuzzy -- sorry-- but you can still tell it's him. He looks amazingly good for his age and was clearly enjoying the evening!

 

I'm not especially enamored with digital. This new print is a bit away from newly struck prints of 1968, and, if it is indeed using the same source as the Blu-ray, it would be yet another generation away. I think Kubrick would be a bit disappointed. Some of the early Dawn of Man sequences had no detail in the fur of the ape-man suits. Much more on the Blu-ray there. I'm not comparing the video to film as a preference, just visible detail.

 

The 1968 print was OCN to IP to IN to Release Print

The new one was OCN to NEW IP (from the 90's) to IN to Release Prints made for the re-release.

This foolishness that it is any different from the old way was started by Rbert A. Harris and was no more true then the first day he said it. Why would Kubrick be disappointed that the same process was used as was done before??? I am sure he would argue about film stock and would track down all the original equipment if he wanted a chemical process...but having some new lab tech go back and make thousands of digital corrections would make him feel more at ease?

At least Nolan used his notes, and did an optical correction based on it.

The only difference is that the the OCN had aged.

The bluray was scanned from the "New IP" in the 90's or 2K scanned from the negative. Both are flawed for one reason. A chemical finish is millions of times more accurate because it doesn't not rely on 2D digital sensors (though there are 3D ones for sure).

Chemical molecules as I have been saying a ton of times can grab up details that a computer can't even come close to doing. While there are techs enamored with this bologna, the truth is that what Nolan has done is try to mimic what happened before. I think he quite succeeded in giving an approximation using the original technology.

When I hear someone say that a 2K down sampled bluray that has a pixel count in the thousands is the same as a 70mm print that has chemical molecules in the BILLIONS I can't help but comment.

We are talking about silver halide particles measured in the nano-meters reacting to light. While film damage sucks, that is not all there is to reproduction of analog. Even 3 to 4 generations away is still a hell of a lot of detail. When you read people putting pixel count approximations on 70 mm film prints, it is complete and utter BS. They have little to zero knowledge of chemical processes and what is worse they tout themselves as experts while coming up empty on the simple mathematics involved.

The bluray has thousands of computer interpolations where the film print has none of that garbage. If you are speaking of "generations", you would agree that a scan of a film print still has to be re-rendered to even get to the bluray because of space limitations. That is what I stated from beginning. 2K resolution for something that measures in the billions?

 

I've enjoyed reading about all this, here and other places, but at the same time a little exhausting because there just isn't much stated information to go on.

Nolan's passion for film + studio PR that loves a good press-release full of vague statements & breathless praise x media outlets repeating & re-interpreting it = understandable confusion regarding what exactly made the screen.

Ultimately this is about a technical process, although one that seems to produce passionate responses.

My question goes to Nolan taking an existing IP and re-timing it for release prints. Which makes me wonder if its more like '90s IP duped back to negative so that Nolan could color-time a new IP, then to IN to release prints.

As for the release itself, I liked it; a cool large theater group experience. I've seen older 70mm prints as well over the years & liked those too. I will also be very curious to see it as an OCN-derived 4K DCP.

(and just as an aside, was the current Blu-Ray derived from a 35mm reduction element?)

 

From what I understand the bluray was derived from a new 70 mm print made from OCN, not a reduction. As for this idea of a dupe of a dupe...from what I read, that is not what happened.

Nolan asked to make prints of the IP that was made in the 90's. There were optical adjustments made when making the internegative that was used for the release prints. People get this idea that Nolan did some big changes when making that negative, and from what I read that is not true. He asked to make prints from the WIP print that was used for the bluray using superior chemical processing that was done back in the old days on first release. Even if it was another dupe...so? We are still talking about chemical molecules. Obviously detail is still going to be very much there, and I don't know about what you saw, but the presentation was superb to my eyes.

2001: A Space Odyssey: the backstage technology of a return to the big screen

UPDATE

Christopher Nolan Presents "Unrestored" 70mm Release of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey - PARLAY STUDIOS | THE TAKE

"Christopher Nolan was first introduced to the idea when he was shown a couple of reels of an answer print from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ while working on digital 4k and HDR versions of this own films. He asked if he could create a new print using the original negative. He was told it was possible, and Warner Bros. had also collected most of the 70 mm projects available in North America for the release of Dunkirk last year. The original negative was sent to a team at the FotoKem laboratory in Burbank, where they spent more than six months cleaning and repairing the 50-year-old negative. They then made an answer print, color-timed it using the original timing notes and documentations, and included a remaster of the original six-track soundtrack."

Is what I have been saying been true all along? Did he really make prints from the OCN???

 

I saw the 70mm presentation at the AFI yesterday. This is the first time I've seen the film theatrically since the early 1970s, when a 35mm print was shown at the local theatre in my suburban town. I really enjoyed it. This is a film which begs to be shown on a large screen (which one doesn't?, you might well ask).

I'll echo a few things that others have already stated:
1) some reels had a lot of damage, but some looked relatively good.
2) the soundtrack was awesome, but the crescendoes were a bit harsh - possibly the way the original recordings sounded?
3) the separation was very effective at times - when old Dave heard his older self's breathing, I thought the guy in the row behind me was having respiration issues!

One thing I never noticed before. The end credits list the orchestra/chorus and conductor for all the pieces, except Also Sprach Zarathustra. I wonder why?

One regret is that I don't know anyone else who was interested in seeing it. I found myself wishing that I could turn my 25-year-old daughter on to a film like this, but then I wondered if she'd get stuck on how old it was, and how opaque the story was. Maybe one day...

 

I forgot to mention: although the large theatre was sparsely populated, it was nice to see around 50 people watching a 50-year-old film for a 4pm weekday showing.

 

Possibly the same reason another version of that piece appeared on the original version of the soundtrack: the label may have refused to license their recording at that time; I think the new book on the making of the film suggests the rights holder did not wish to be associated with the project but did allow its use with restrictions: no soundtrack use and no specific identification. The 1996 reissue of the soundtrack included the actual version used: Vienna Philharmonic under the direction of Herbert von Karajan, originally released by Decca Records in 1959.

 

It always bugged me that they didn't list it as "Sunrise" from Also Sprach Zarathustra, which would have been appropriate.

 

You know what I find funny...after scores and scores of people complaining how Nolan made the print to begin with, after tons on forums talking about it being a dupe of a dupe...after a technician has went around condemning Nolan for doing the process at all and how it cannot have any value... then after me debating it for 101 posts with a respected moderator/blogger, and getting kicked off of two forums complements of the original technician debating these lies and using his strings to censor me (I am still laughing at the fact that I actually asked..how do you know the negative is not printable? HOW????)....

what we have here is that Nolan actually did a chemical process from the original OCN like I have been saying from day frickin' one because of the original press release....

and yet what we have is tons and tons of fanboys still posting "Nolan ruined this...Nolan screwed up that..BLAH BLAH BLAH".

Not saying that there is any problem here and I love this forum.

I just find it funny that there are going to be a lot of people eating their words if this is in fact true.

I know I had one poster actually saying they refused to watch in 70 mm because it is so many generations away. STUPID

If no one understand this concept understand it now. A digital scan is less than the quality of a photo-chemical process for obvious reasons. It is a scientific fact. But from the OCN? Oh jeez are people funny. So many talking that smack and didn't even want to ponder the truth.

Sorry for this outburst, but I admit fully that I never knew what the truth was, I was open to discussing, but people like the ones I have cited were actually completely obscene in their fanboyism. It was like a sick twisted religion and I cannot wait to hear their back peddling when the truth becomes even more known.

I always thought...what is the big deal with doing a print from OCN after it is digitally scanned? The thing is aging anyway. Why not at least do a preservation of print sets to extend the life while it is in some kind of save state instead of relying on digital only which can be gone in the stroke of an electronic flash?

Ok..gonna drink some coffee now.

 

You're getting some ridiculous heat out there in the corn belt tropics, aren't you? Maybe that is adding to the agitation.

 

Moi offend?

 

Not at all. Just my twisted sense of humor.