Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2001, A SPACE ODDYSSEY (1968) on BD is great but------

This is topic 2001, A SPACE ODDYSSEY (1968) on BD is great but------ in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000752

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-24-2009, 09:58 PM:

I was fortunate to see Stanley Kubrick's 2001, A SPACE ODDYSSEY during it's road show single projection Cinerama engagement and in 70mm at least three times during revival showings. Because I have the movie on a laserdisc and DVD, I never thought about buying it again on Blu Ray until I heard how good it is by some of my friends who have it and various reviews on the internet. Before buying it, I thought it might be better if I rented it first from Blochbuster and I did. I fully concur with all of the positive comments about the movie on Blu Ray except the aspect ratio that was used on the BD release. I am sure 2001, A SPACE ODDYSSEY was photographed in Ultra Panavision to simulate the extreme wide picture that was the norm with three strip Cinerama. Ultra Panavision has a 2.76:1 aspect ratio but the image on the Blu Ray seem to be cropped to the standard 70mm 2.20:1 ratio and the picture does not look normal. A good example is the scene in the space lounge when the American scientist meets his Russian colleagues after he lands at the space station early in the movie. There is a shot when all of them are suppose to be visible but the woman on the right and the woman on the left were cropped out and all that was visible were their legs. Except for the incorrect ratio, the picture quality on the BD is wonderful and look exactly the way I saw the film in Cinerama and standard 70mm. The sound on the Blu Ray is also great.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2009, 01:10 AM:

I don't know. The Ultra Panavision format uses anamorphic lenses with a minor squeeze to fit a 2.7:1 image into the 2.20:1 frame. Some of the usual optical artifacts of anamorphic photography end up present in the image. Same thing goes for anything shot in Technirama (the anamorphic version of VistaVision).

2001: A Space Odyssey looked very much like normal spherical 5/65 photography to me. For the Cinerama version I'm wondering if the tops and bottoms of the image were simply cropped to create the wider aspect ratio image. If certain things look cropped in the Blu-ray version that makes me wonder if the BD version is just an extraction out of a larger frame.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2009, 09:48 AM:

Claude...I can assure you, 2001:A Space Odyssey was shot and premiered SPHERICALLY. No Ultra-Panavision. In fact, the double tag of Super Panavision 70 and Cinerama were on some of the promotional items for the film. I've shown it many times in 70mm...including at the Uptown theatre (site of the premiere and its anniversary showings...I worked the anniversary...too young to work the premiere).

As I recall, in that scene, there are times when all are composed in the frame and times when they are not. The dialog would move about too to try and locate people.

2.20 is the correct ratio.

Steve

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-25-2009, 03:30 PM:

Thanks, Steve

I did some research and you are right, The film was indeed photographed in Super Panavision 70 and not in the wider format. I could have swore the picture was much wider when I saw it during it's Cinerama engagement. It stands to reason why so many spherical 70mm movies were released under the Cinerama banner. They only wanted to capitalize on the Cinerama brand name like they are doing now with Digital IMAX. The first single projection Cinerama film, IT A MAD, MAD,MAD WORLD was indeed photographed in Ultra Panavision but many others were not. Some of the single projection Cinerama films I remember seeing during it initial road show run includes THE SONG OF NORWAY, GRAND PRIX, CUSTER OF THE WEST, THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE", KARTHOUM, CIRCUS WORLD, KRAKATOA, EAST OF JAVA and ICE STATION ZEBRA. A few of these such as KARTHOUM and THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE were photographed in Ultra Panavision but the others were probably shot in Super Panavision. I guess I can now buy 2001, A SPACE ODDYSSEY" in Blu Ray knowing it is in the proper ratio.

-Claude

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2009, 04:35 PM:

I would...and probably will. It is certainly my favorite film of all time.

I think Logans Run was one of the last films to "steal" an old name ... I think they used Todd-Ao or Cinerama though it had nothing to do really with either of those formats.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-25-2009, 04:47 PM:

Steve,

LOGAN'S RUN was photographed in Todd AO 35 and blown up to 70mm and released by MGM. Because Dolby Stereo was introduced about that time, there were 35mm prints with encoded stereo tracks. Warner Home Video announced LOGAN'S RUN will be released on Blu Ray this fall and I am planning to getit because it has been one of my favorites

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2009, 04:59 PM:

I remember the 1980 movie Flash Gordon doing the same thing. Its end credits stated "filmed in Todd-AO" even though the photography was obviously 35mm anamorphic.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-25-2009, 08:35 PM:

Dune was also filmed using ToddAO 35mm anamorphic lenses, which you can still rent from Clairmont Camera in Hollywood, New Mexico, and Canada.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2009, 09:19 PM:

Yeah, that sounds right...Todd Ao 35. And that means? Like IMAX...whatever we want it to mean though to those that should know...it should mean 70mm and 30fps...(Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days).

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-25-2009, 09:58 PM:

Steve,

To apply a further blow to the glory of Todd-AO and 30 fps they also made Standard Def type anamorphic video camera lenses(LOL). At least it was back to 30fps for that format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2009, 10:40 PM:

I think the last bit of glory for the Todd-AO format was Baraka using the term in its credits. But the camera used to film Baraka was a custom machined piece of equipment, not an old camera associated with previous Todd-AO 70mm production.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-25-2009, 11:20 PM:

If I had gotten a dime for everytime I had to explain the difference between "Filmed in Panavision" and "Filmed with Panavision cameras and lenses" ....

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-25-2009, 11:50 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
LOGAN'S RUN was photographed in Todd AO 35 and blown up to 70mm and released by MGM. Because Dolby Stereo was introduced about that time, there were 35mm prints with encoded stereo tracks. Warner Home Video announced LOGAN'S RUN will be released on Blu Ray this fall and I am planning to getit because it has been one of my favorites

I added a post on the "Logan's Run" comment in the "Yak forum" under the "eBay junk" about the Bauer U2 that is up for sale ..

..and it was with these machines that I did see "Logan's Run" in 70mm back in the summer of '76 ... an now glad that Warner's gonna release "LR" on BlewRay and I do agree with Claude: it was also one of my favorites - just one of those oddities of releases that only gathered the special crowd.

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-26-2009, 01:40 AM:

I think it is pretty cool, at least in a strangely weird sort of way, that Logans Run was filmed in the Fort Worth, TX area. I had a sort of "WTF?" reaction when I learned that.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 07-26-2009, 02:49 AM:

it used to be that one of the blessings (for someone like me who doesn't watch movies on video) of a dvd release was that a new print would be struck. does this mean that logan's run will be available in 35mm again? when it was shown recently around here, only a 16mm flat print could be located. not that i'm a great fan of the film.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-26-2009, 05:35 AM:

I never knew where where LR was shot...until I was in a hotel on Fort Worth and looked out the window...to see the fountain all the 29 year-olds went into.

Mighty neat experince pour moi. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2009, 09:19 PM:

I hate this movie, I really do. Maybe I am not artsy fartsy enough or maybe I am just not brilliant enough to comprehend its glorious "magnificence". This movie is slower than an impacted turd moving through dead Elvis.

And I'm sure the Blu-ray version sucks just as much!

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-27-2009, 09:33 PM:

[Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-27-2009, 09:34 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
And that means? Like IMAX...whatever we want it to mean though to those that should know...it should mean 70mm and 30fps...(Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days).

And the director, Michael Anderson, actually claimed (on the last DVD's commentary track) that he talked MGM into letting him shoot in Todd-AO because he used that system when he directed AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS and he talked about the depth of angle, or something like that. He only mentioned later in his technical talk that this was the 35mm version.

BTW, while the current DVD is pretty crappy (LOTS of bob asnd weave, scratches), the soundtrack is VERY faithful to the original. Hopefully, Warner won't do their usual tampering with the directional dialog and trying to filter out the very slight magnetic hiss (taking out the highs as well) like they have done on a number of other releases.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2009, 10:16 PM:

Joe,

Look at it like I look at Jazz...I don't like it, I don't get it but I respect that many folks consider it the greatest form of music. I'm fine with the fact I don't get it and it is great it makes so many people so happy.

2001 is not an aquired taste...you either like it or your don't. I love it...it still sits at #1 on my list of movies (like I really have a list). Note too, I generally like Stanley Kubrick movies so there is probably something to my preference for his style.

Steve

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-27-2009, 10:37 PM:

I was a bit on Joe's side for a while...I just thought it was a long snore-fest. I never sat down and watched it as we only ever played old pink worn out 35mm prints.

Then I saw a new print of it in 6-track 70mm. [Eek!]

Incredible.

[thumbsup]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2009, 12:00 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
This movie is slower than an impacted turd moving through dead Elvis.

Now that's a more visual metaphor than "slower than a glacier."

BTW, which movie did you say was slow? Logan's Run or 2001?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-28-2009, 12:30 AM:

I was fascinated when I saw 2001 A SPACE ODDYSSEY during it's first run in single projection Cinerama at Honolulu's Cinerama Theatre and was not bored at all but I must admit, "The Dawn of Men" sequence has become a 'snore feast' after the first time I saw the film and usually skip it when I watch it on DVD. The remainder of the film is great especially the HAL sequence.

Honolulu major theatres had played almost every film released in 70mm in the wide format but LOGAN'S RUN was not one of them. I saw the film in house #2 at the Waikiki Twins and although the theatre was equipped for 70mm, it played in 35mm and mono because Dolby Stereo was new and the Waikiki was not yet set up for it. Despite it was not in 70, I still enjoyed the movie very much. The picture quality on the DVD was not that good but it was great watching the movie finally with stereo sound. I only hope the Blu-Ray will finally present the film the way it looked in 70mm.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2009, 03:29 AM:

2001. I did not read any posts about Logan's Run.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-28-2009, 07:13 AM:

I saw 2001 at the Uptown the first Sunday after the world premier. I recall during the "Dawn of Man" sequence someone in the balcony shouted out "What the hell is this a film about some damn monkeys?" I also believe it was the long version before the SK imposed cuts. I recall very long scenes of Discovery moving across the screen that seemed to be shorter when I ran a 70mm print a few years later at the MacArthur.

Another of my favorites is the 70mm version of "Days of Heaven", which I have heard no 70mm prints exist today.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-28-2009, 03:32 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
Another of my favorites is the 70mm version of "Days of Heaven", which I have heard no 70mm prints exist today.

A friend of mine a few years back apparently read or heard from somewhere that the Days of Heaven 70mm prints were accidentally destroyed. I guess what happened was that Paramount had ordered the destruction of some 70mm prints of Days of Thunder but who ever was in charge of print control at the vault or where ever they were storing them put in the wrong information so prints of Days of Heaven were accidentally pulled and destroyed before the mistake was caught. Not sure if negatives were involved or not.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-28-2009, 10:51 PM:

I seem to remember reading that that the Academy had a couple of DAYS OF HEAVEN 70mm prints on deposit.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2009, 01:17 AM:

I just hope the original camera negatives from Days of Heaven are still in great condition. If so, that movie would be worthy of a 4K or higher resolution scan and digital intermediate treatment to get as pristine an image as possible onto Blu-ray.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-29-2009, 07:19 AM:

I've never heard of a studio that would destroy any of their negatives to save on storage space...prints yes, not negatives or separations. However, the separations (particularly on older titles, are "like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get!"

Steve

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-29-2009, 09:05 PM:

Like Logan's Run, I saw DAYS OF HEAVEN in 35mm at the Royal Theatre in Waikiki. It was in Dolby Stereo and I was happy about that. The film was gorgeous and I kept thinking how much better it would have been if I had the opportunity to see it in the large format. It did not do too well in Hawaii and played only two weeks at the Royal and it was gone. Because the film was released so long ago, I do not know if DAYS OF HEAVEN was photographed in 65mm or 35 and blown up to 70mm. I suspect it was shot in 35mm. Because it was a Paramount film, the studio is notorious for neglecting to release it older titles on DVD and most especially Blu Ray. If it comes out on Blu Ray one day, I plan to get it.

-Claude

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-17-2009, 08:45 PM:

Days Of Heaven was indeed shot in 35mm.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-18-2009, 10:41 PM:

One curious thing about 2001 is that my recollection of seeing it in 1968 at the Boston Cinerama is that when the ape-like creature throws the bone into the air and it became the spaceship, the angle of the bone and the spaceship at the cut was exactly the same - so much so that the audience gasped at the edit.

But when I've watched it on DVD or the new BluRay, it's not quite right. Is my memory faulty or is it that the deeply curved Cinerama screen made it work and seeing it on a flat screen destroys the illusion?

And yes, 2001 is a slower moving film than the hyperactive trash that gets released today. That's because Kramer had far more respect for the intelligence of the audience than directors do today. The film was not designed with the intention to attract horny 14-year-old boys who consume tons of sugar and think a literary exercise is being a criminal in a videgame (or those same boys now supposedly "grown up").

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-19-2009, 02:03 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
And yes, 2001 is a slower moving film than the hyperactive trash that gets released today. That's because Kramer had far more respect for the intelligence of the audience than directors do today.

Kramer showed his respect for intelligence by not directing this movie?

Stanley Kramer != Stanley Kubrick

Courtesy of google and this hyperactive "youngster" (I do have ADHD) [Razz]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-19-2009, 02:41 AM:

At the VILLA in SLC in October of 1968: Massive 120ft screen with that huge curve all covered up in a great curtain.

Then, the lights go down curtains opens up to the side and ...

.........a modern drawn MGM trademark..... [Eek!]

hits the screen.

...no classic "Leo the Lion" trademark....!

Such disappointment at the beginning...

Excellent presentation! Century "JJ"s with Ashcraft Super Corelites doing the honors of an excellent 70mm presentation.
(booth originally was a Cinerama booth with its respective wing booths for the other panels..)

My first 70mm viewing experience. Sadly, never got the chance to run that film gauge - even with IMAX..

..oh well - good movie anywhos. I have it on Laserdisk in widescreen in the CAV format.

-Monte

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 09-19-2009, 05:59 AM:

I always thought the gold stylized lion on the blue background were period correct? Is this the one you mean Monte?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-19-2009, 07:56 AM:

That is the CORRECT MGM logo for 2001...despite it not being a classy as the live Leo....sorry.

Steve