2001: A Space Odyssey

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
On 5 Apr 2008 13:07:26 GMT, (Cass Lewart)
wrote:

Alan Browne ) wrote:

: I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and resisted
the : urge to buy it.

: At home last night I played the standard DVD version on my BluRay
player : (Panasonic) to my plasma tv. The player upconverts very
nicely to 1080p.

: Fantastic. And also discovered that the "ape" scene at the
beginning : was filmed indoors. On the old television screen I would
swear it was : filmed outdoors.

: With the DVD (non-HD mind you) you could actually see errors in the
: studio backdrop where painting (or cleaning) had been badly done!
(Not : in all backgrounds but in one or two of them).

: Great movie, needless to say.


If you really want to understand the 2001 movie read the book. It
also exists in audio version. Many scenes which did not make much
sense in the movie are given in more detail in the 2001 book.

Cass

I disagree. The book was Clarke's idea of the story the movie "should"
have told. Still, it's very interesting to compare the two.... but the
book doesn't help one understand the movie. Besides, the book was
written AFTER the movie was made.

It was released after the movie, but the book was written more or less
in parallel with the screenplay.

The "origin" of the screenplay idea was from Clark's short "The Sentinel".

Cheers,
Alan


This is the way I remember it. A google turns up may references to this.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:47:01 -0500, Jer wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
On 5 Apr 2008 13:07:26 GMT, (Cass Lewart)
wrote:

Alan Browne ) wrote:

: I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and resisted
the : urge to buy it.

: At home last night I played the standard DVD version on my BluRay
player : (Panasonic) to my plasma tv. The player upconverts very
nicely to 1080p.

: Fantastic. And also discovered that the "ape" scene at the
beginning : was filmed indoors. On the old television screen I would
swear it was : filmed outdoors.

: With the DVD (non-HD mind you) you could actually see errors in the
: studio backdrop where painting (or cleaning) had been badly done!
(Not : in all backgrounds but in one or two of them).

: Great movie, needless to say.


If you really want to understand the 2001 movie read the book. It
also exists in audio version. Many scenes which did not make much
sense in the movie are given in more detail in the 2001 book.

Cass

I disagree. The book was Clarke's idea of the story the movie "should"
have told. Still, it's very interesting to compare the two.... but the
book doesn't help one understand the movie. Besides, the book was
written AFTER the movie was made.

It was released after the movie, but the book was written more or less
in parallel with the screenplay.

The "origin" of the screenplay idea was from Clark's short "The Sentinel".

Cheers,
Alan


This is the way I remember it. A google turns up may references to this.
Also, Arthur was quoted as stating that he didn't agree with the way
the movie turned out, and so wanted to "correct" the story with the
book. I don't remember where I read that... but it may well have been
stated on the book jacket or the back cover.

On 05 Apr 2008 22:29:43 GMT, "Bill's News"
wrote:

some comments snipped
Alan Browne wrote in
:

I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and
resisted the urge to buy it.


A wise choice, the film has not aged well, even if the
restoration were perfect - which it isn't. However, the blue
laser version is significantly better on the screen than the
letterboxed DVD version I own - even with the best upconversion.


Best seen in theater, in 1968, after a touch of one's
hallucinogen du jour!



My memory is not that good for that long ago, but I "think" I saw 2001
in Houston at a theater that displayed it in Cinerama ( a wrap-around
screen). Anyone remember that theater? Wasn't it on Westheimer or
Richmond?

"Alan Browne" wrote:

I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and resisted the
urge to buy it.

At home last night I played the standard DVD version on my BluRay player
(Panasonic) to my plasma tv. The player upconverts very nicely to 1080p.

Fantastic. And also discovered that the "ape" scene at the beginning
was filmed indoors. On the old television screen I would swear it was
filmed outdoors.

With the DVD (non-HD mind you) you could actually see errors in the
studio backdrop where painting (or cleaning) had been badly done! (Not
in all backgrounds but in one or two of them).

Great movie, needless to say.

..snip
Cheers,
Alan.

Ok, I'm showing my age here, but I remember seeing 2001 in it's initial
release (1968) in a theater set up for Cinerama and I'm sure that most
people didn't realize that the scene mentioned was shot indoors. That says
it all for the quality of today's DVD players and monitors.
-N.Morrow

wrote:
On 05 Apr 2008 22:29:43 GMT, "Bill's News"
wrote:

some comments snipped
Alan Browne wrote in
:

I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and
resisted the urge to buy it.

A wise choice, the film has not aged well, even if the
restoration were perfect - which it isn't. However, the blue
laser version is significantly better on the screen than the
letterboxed DVD version I own - even with the best upconversion.


Best seen in theater, in 1968, after a touch of one's
hallucinogen du jour!



My memory is not that good for that long ago, but I "think" I saw 2001
in Houston at a theater that displayed it in Cinerama ( a wrap-around
screen). Anyone remember that theater? Wasn't it on Westheimer or
Richmond?




Windsor Theater, Richmond and 610.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:40:56 -0500, wrote:

My memory is not that good for that long ago, but I "think" I saw 2001
in Houston at a theater that displayed it in Cinerama ( a wrap-around
screen). Anyone remember that theater? Wasn't it on Westheimer or
Richmond?

There was a Cinerama version of 2001 when it first came out. I first
saw it in Cinerama tripping my brains out on orange sunshine acid. The
movie made no sense in terms of story and plot, but I didn't care. In
many respects, the movie is about the experience of watching the
movie, in the same way that a piece of music is about listening to the
music.

You also have to remember that this movie was released in 1968 before
the moon landing. The special effects were a huge step up from
anything that had been done before. In fact, it was in a whole new
league as far as special effects and it effected every science fiction
movie that followed it.

It's impossible for someone now to understand what is was like to see
the movie in Cinerama when it was first released. Basically, when the
film started, the audience soon became aware that they had never seen
anything like this before.

Kubric was lucky that the film appealed to acid heads. The film was
not a financial success, but some of the success it did have, it owed
to the acid heads who saw the movie over and over again high on LSD.

"Jack Hollis" wrote:
There was a Cinerama version of 2001 when it first came out. I first
saw it in Cinerama tripping my brains out on orange sunshine acid. The
movie made no sense in terms of story and plot, but I didn't care....
Kubric was lucky that the film appealed to acid heads. The film was
not a financial success, but some of the success it did have, it owed
to the acid heads who saw the movie over and over again high on LSD.

At 13, I was a bit young for acid, but I was an SF-addict and recall being
blown away by the cinematography. However, by the time Star Wars
came out (1977), I was old enuff to pass around a joint in the Paramount
Theatre on Broadway and thought it hysterically funny.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:40:56 -0500, wrote:

My memory is not that good for that long ago, but I "think" I saw 2001
in Houston at a theater that displayed it in Cinerama ( a wrap-around
screen). Anyone remember that theater? Wasn't it on Westheimer or
Richmond?

It wasn't filmed in Cinerama; a common misconception. It was filmed in
'Super Panavision 70'; (65mm negative / 70mm print)

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingsp1.htm

A_C

Bill's News wrote:

Alan Browne wrote

I saw a BD v. of this classic at the store yesterday and
resisted the urge to buy it.

A wise choice, the film has not aged well, even if the
restoration were perfect - which it isn't. However, the blue
laser version is significantly better on the screen than the
letterboxed DVD version I own - even with the best upconversion.


i have the letterboxed DVD version called "Stanley Kubrick Collection"

it is "digitally restored and remastered" (which was done
maybe 2001? (not to be confused with with the film title))

as you know, i'm a BIG sci-fi fan

but the 2001 that i have is a disappointment, both the
picture quality and sound, even with the DD5.1 sound

fwiw, with rare exception, i avoid buying older
movies in HD coz to me better/modern surround sound
is a big key to my enjoyment of any HD movie, and the
older movies typically don't have much to offer with
regard to better sound (of any kind)

bill

In article ,
"SR" wrote:

2001 made absolutely no sense to me when I first saw it. The jumps between
various stages of the movie with no sègues left me baffled. (Don't get me
started about the "Star Child" at the end!) After reading the book and
rewatching the movie, I had a much better appreciation of the movie and the
story being told.

It made no sense to me when I first saw it either, but I'm not quite old
enough to have seen its original theatre run. I got to see it from time
to time back in the '70s as the local TV station's Saturday night movie.
Jumps with no segues? The psychedelic sequence is long enough that it
usually got two or three commercials breaking it up, and who couldn't
fall asleep during that? Especially on a TV with no remote control, much
less a mute button?

I made up for it by seeing it on 70mm at an IMAX back in the '90s. It
was so wide that I had to turn my head to see both sides of the picture.