Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Presented in 70MM)

This is topic 2001: A Space Odyssey (Presented in 70MM) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=001735

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 12:38 AM:

****
Just what I thought, the screen size is not the difference

I remember an projectionist friend of my saying "70mm has less to do with the screen size, and more to do with what is inside the frame", that was 14 years ago.

I have not seen a 70mm presenation since a blow up of Lethal Weapon 3 way back in the day. I had a chance to see 2001: A Space Odyssey this evening in 70MM film at the Bell Lightbox in Toronto. Let, me just say that tonight's film going experience will go down as one of the great experiences in a movie theatre that I have ever had. This not just a credit to 70mm, as it also has to do with the sound, crowd, theatre design and overall experience of seeing a great film on the big screen. I will not forget this evening.

2001 on the big screen is a whole difference experience compared to one at home. The flow of the film seems to be better when viewed inside a movie theatre with great picture, sound and a crowd with you.

Right at the beginning with the opening "MGM" logo, you know how extrodinary the night will be. The colour, contrast and steadiness of 70mm is felt right away. The opening scenes of the Dawn of Man are outstanding. You know you are watching film of high quality.

The scope of the film and dramatic impact are astonishing. Filming it Super Panavision 70 adds to the experience. Many of the scenes are like looking at a painting. The great thing about 2001 is that the meaning to the film is open to intreptation to anyone who watches, all 150 people in the theatre will have their own feelings and meanings from the film.

2001 at the Bell Lightbox is presented with an opening oveture, cutains hiding the screen, a 5 minute intermission and reel-to-reel with a projectionsist changing the reels every 12 minutes (I would assume). Not sure how long a 70mm reel lasts. There was a brief announcement before the film started.

I am not sure if this film is presented in magnetic or DTS, and truthfully I really don't want to know as that would taint my perception. Let's just say that the sound is incredible. The opening music, the scenes with astronaut breathing is just outstanding. I have not heard a movie sound this good. The front screen channel seperation is evident all throughout the film. During the silent scenes, you could hear a faint hiss coming from the speakers.

Credit must be given to the design of Cinema #1. This is a well designed theatre. Every row is curved and pointed towards the centre of the screen. There is a balcony and stadium seating and a lower bowl. There is pretty much three sections to the cinema. The walls are acoustically padded from top to bottom, every part of the side walls are padded. The balcony roof above the stadium seating section is padded as well. The walls inside the hallways are padded and you hear the voice die out as you entered the hallways.

This was an event I will never forget. I took the train into Toronto, I ate dinner and drank from an old fashioned Coke (made with cane sugar) bottle before the show, met my friends and enjoyed a great film presented in a great way.

I know there is some great discussion about film vs digital and 70mm being dead etc. I am not going to go into this, however there were some things that stood on this evening.

1. The social aspect of watching 2001 in 70mm was differnent than watching a film in 35mm. The crowd was about 150 in attendance and all for some reason sat very close to one another. It was like we all wanted to be close together to share this experience. There were people sitting so close to me whereas at a 35mm movie, we would be sitting farther apart. There were over 500 seats in this theatre, all 150 of us took the front 15 rows.

2. The crowd chatted with one another before the show about film and technology. The audience cleary knew we all were in this together and watching something special. There was not a sound from the audience during the show and the entire crowd stayed for the credits until the "The End" part of the credit came on screen. The entire credits were shown in the dark with no house lights until "The End" came on screen.

3. Having a projectionist change the reels every 15 minutes or so added to the experience. This was film presentation of the highest quality.

The only thing I was not happy with on the evening is that there was no buzz or marketing of the evening. Nowhere on the building, marquee, ticket counter did it say 70mm. Even on my ticket it did not say "presented in 70mm"

I was hoping for something like the attached picture Glendale 2001 which would of made even more special. The Glendale played 2001 for two years during the intial engagement just so you know.

In closing, my experience tonight of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey is something I will never forget. It was an experience that I have not been able to get at any other theatre I have been in the last little while. I don't believe that 70mm is the be all-end all of film making and film presentation (it clearly has its place), perhaps certain films should be given the 70mm treatment. I think that what is most important is that of the social experience and watching a film in a great venue with the highest quality possible is of most importance 70mm provides that medium for those people to come together.

70mm, a great film, great sound, a great audience, and showmanship by a projectionist. I will not forget this special evening.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-21-2010, 12:51 AM:

This belongs in the afterlife section

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 12:53 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
This belongs in the afterlife section

Sorry, but this is in theatrical release in Toronto right now for a 4 week exclusive engagement showing three times per day.

On a side note: Tonight there is lunar elcipse that has not been seen for like 2000 years or something like that.

Who would of thought?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-21-2010, 02:05 AM:

I just took a gander at it.
The moon looks like an angry red ball.
Even though I am aware this is only an atmospheric phenomenon, I like to believe the red moon means doom for us on Earth.
DOOM!
[evil]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-21-2010, 02:25 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Many of the scenes are like looking at a painting.

You are in some parts...especially the background in the Dawn Of Man sequence. In 70mm you can even see the brush strokes. (on Blu Ray they're even more evident)

2001 has to be seen in 70mm. For me no other option will do.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 02:51 AM:

quote: John Wilson
2001 has to be seen in 70mm.

Yes you You are 100% correct.

quote: John Wilson
especially the background in the Dawn Of Man sequence.

I didn't even notice that those were paintings at all. I thought they were real.

I noticed it later on the fiim.

Also, when I say "it looks like looking at a painting" what I mean is the mean of the shot as well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2010, 03:21 AM:

Personally, I think ALL movie reviews belong in the movie review section, but that's just me and my wacky common-sense causing trouble for everyone again. [Smile]

quote: Tom Petrov
Tonight there is lunar elcipse that has not been seen for like 2000 years or something like that.

This shit happens all the time, several per decade at least.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 03:40 AM:

quote:
Personally, I think ALL movie reviews belong in the movie review section, but that's just me and my wacky common-sense causing trouble for everyone again. [Smile]

What?

A film seen in the theatre will be experienced completely different than that at home.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2010, 03:44 AM:

Not Will Ferrell movies. They suck equally bad on the big screen or at home.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 03:45 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Not Will Ferrell movies. They suck equally bad on the big screen or at home.

LOL

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-21-2010, 05:17 AM:

quote: Bra
Not Will Ferrell movies. They suck equally bad on the big screen or at home.

Except 'Stranger Than Fiction' [Razz]

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 12-21-2010, 06:09 AM:

It was a new DTS (5.1) print, the film was personally made for the Toronto Film Festival conglomerate.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-21-2010, 10:24 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I didn't even notice that those were paintings at all. I thought they were real.

They weren't. They were 35mm slides taken in Africa and projected through a newly refined front-projection system with both the 65mm film camera and the 35mm slide projector on the same aligned plane. Lights on the performers and foreground objects washed out the projections on them. The few strokes you're seeing on the backgrounds are actually from the material used for the back screen that the slides projected on to.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-21-2010, 11:42 AM:

Warner Bros. has evidently just found 17 minutes of Lost Footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey in their Kansas salt-mine vault. Kubrick cut the film after the NYC premiere at the Loew's Capitol Theatre from 160 minutes to around 141 minutes. Doug Trumbull & David Larson were working on a documentary "2001: Beyond the Infinite-The Making of a Masterpiece" and a Behind-the-Scenes photo book.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-21-2010, 12:03 PM:

The Dawn of Man backgrounds in 2001 were slides indeed, but not 35mm. They were shot and projected on 8x10 Ektachrome sheet film.

See the AC article on 2001:
American Cinematographer article on 2001

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2010, 12:16 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
3. Having a projectionist change the reels every 15 minutes or so added to the experience. This was film presentation of the highest quality.

Not to nitpick, but exactly HOW did this add to the experience? If the projectionist was doing his job right, you in theory wouldn't have been able to tell if it was ran off of a platter or changeover.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-21-2010, 12:22 PM:

I saw 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY at it's original road show engagement at Honolulu's Cinerama Theatre and I was very impressed with the 70mm presentation and the film itself. THe Cinerama in Hawaii was a three strip Cinerama house and the original equipment from the theatre has been refurbished and now at the Archlight Cinerama Dome Theatre in Los Angeles. "2001" projected on the deeply curved screen was an awesome sight and so was the sound. I saw the movie again in 70mm at another theatre in Honolulu and the presentation at the Varsity was good but the sonic and visual splendor of what I saw at the Cinerama was missing.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2010, 01:00 PM:

quote: John Wilson
Except 'Stranger Than Fiction'

While I agree that is probably the best project that Will Ferrell will ever be involved in in his entire life, a movie like that wouldn't be better at a theater than on a 13-inch black and white TV with an RF connection to a VHS VCR (non-HQ) playing back a grocery store brand tape recorded in EQ off of someone's camcordering of the movie off of a drive-in screen from 3 miles away with super RF gain to pick up the sound.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2010, 01:21 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
1. The social aspect of watching 2001 in 70mm was differnent than watching a film in 35mm. The crowd was about 150 in attendance and all for some reason sat very close to one another. It was like we all wanted to be close together to share this experience. There were people sitting so close to me whereas at a 35mm movie, we would be sitting farther apart.

It had nothing to do with the size of the film; the fans at an event like this are like a "community." You would have all been crammed together even if you were watching it on Super 8.

Besides, you said there was no indication anywhere that the movie was in 70mm, so most people probably weren't aware of it and I'd bet at least half of them don't know what "70mm" is anyway.

Personally I prefer to have "my own space" if possible when watching a movie. I don't mind sitting in a big crowd but if I can find a row or group of seats and have an empty few on each side, I'm all over that.

quote:
Personally, I think ALL movie reviews belong in the movie review section,

I agree, to me the Afterlife is for discussions on video equipment and so on, but this topic is about a theatrical experience so it's properly placed IMHO.

quote: Joe Redifer
This shit happens all the time, several per decade at least.

This was the only "total lunar eclipse to happen on the winter solstice" since 1638 and the next one won't happen for another few hundred years, or something.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-21-2010, 01:36 PM:

It's been a while since I followed the reviews on here.

So, since others brought it up...I've always wondered -- Are there two threads for some movies? One set of reviews by folks who caught in theatres...and then another for folks who watched the same movie on video?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2010, 01:46 PM:

I hope not. That would be awfully cluttered. Like I said, all movie reviews should be here regardless of where or how you saw it. It's a review of a movie. This is the movie review forum.

quote: Mike Blakesley
This was the only "total lunar eclipse to happen on the winter solstice" since 1638 and the next one won't happen for another few hundred years, or something.

Yes, but just because I rarely remove a lab splice at the exact moment that Prince Charles is taking a huge dump doesn't make that lab splice removal any more special.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-21-2010, 01:47 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
It had nothing to do with the size of the film; the fans at an event like this are like a "community." You would have all been crammed together even if you were watching it on Super 8.

Sorry but 60 of 150 people do not usually sit in the first 6 rows of the lower part of a stadium seating theatre that has a balcony, and seats 541 people. The rest were right behind the front aisle. There was nobody near the back (which would actually be middle because of the balcony).

quote: Mike Blakesley
Besides, you said there was no indication anywhere that the movie was in 70mm, so most people probably weren't aware of it and I'd bet at least half of them don't know what "70mm" is anyway.

Well the people in my section sure did. So did the 25 year old women who was talking up the 70mm film festival in Ottawa and actually mentioned something from Hartford.

quote: Brad Miller
Not to nitpick, but exactly HOW did this add to the experience? If the projectionist was doing his job right, you in theory wouldn't have been able to tell if it was ran off of a platter or changeover.

To look back at view the projectionist cleaning the equipment between reels and taking some pride over his work was nice to see.

It sure beats that pops that are often found on splices at the Silvercity or that annoying voice sound that says "Cinema 1 has started" for the automation.

A good film, the community, a projectionist all together. It beats an experience at a local megaplex. To know that the projectionist was pretty much with us the whole time is something you do not get anywhere else.

It was nice to have someone personally take care and have pride of our experience watching the movie.

More than likely, way back in 1968, the film would of been presented the same way.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2010, 03:35 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Sorry but 60 of 150 people do not usually sit in the first 6 rows of the lower part of a stadium seating theatre that has a balcony, and seats 541 people. The rest were right behind the front aisle. There was nobody near the back

Sorry but all of that crap has absolutely nothing to do with how wide the film is.

When we played the last Star Wars movie, there were a bunch of Star Wars geeks who rushed to sit in the first few rows. Not a one of them said they were doing that because they knew it was a 35mm film. It was because they wanted to immerse themselves in the big screen.

You are giving the format more credit than it deserves.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2010, 04:04 PM:

Nah Mike, those Star Wars nerds understand that sitting in the front row, they will get to see the movie before everyone behind them. Sure it will only buy them an instant (the speed of light), but damnit it's Star Wars!

Tom - was the movie that boring you felt the need to turn around and watch the projectionist??? Oh wait, we are talking about half an hour of apes grunting and flinging poo aren't we? Maybe the projectionist's job was more entertaining.

Regardless, that's the dumbest reasoning I've ever heard. (Plus btw we hate it when people turn around and stare at us.) The projectionists is supposed to be an invisible entity. You shouldn't even know he is there. Everything should just be perfect regardless of what is going on in the booth. Whatever the projectionist is doing in the booth makes NO difference in the content of the movie, unless he is changing over to out of frame reels or botching up the timing. At least with the platter assuming the print has been screened once, the show will stay in frame, stay in focus, etc.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 12-21-2010, 05:18 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
The projectionists is supposed to be an invisible entity. You shouldn't even know he is there.

I dont think this is the issue. The thought of a professional projectionist (I assume he is a professional if he is running an expensive 70mm print) carefully monitoring a show from the start of the show, right through the changeovers to the very last end credit would give the technically aware customer a sense that he is a VIP and not just a ticket number.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-21-2010, 07:08 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
was the movie that boring you felt the need to turn around and watch the projectionist?

Oh, I don't know. I used to watch projectionists all the time, when I went to theatres that had them. I always wanted to see if there was somebody there to monitor the start, check the focus and framing and such. The last changeover show I saw was this last summer at the Bloor Cinema in Toronto. I sat in the balcony, and when I saw the motor cue, I instinctively turned around to see if I could see anybody at the port glass.

Now that I think about it, the last time I saw 2001 in 70mm was at the Uptown in November of 2001, during it's last re-release (it was the night that the curtain tore while opening after the intermission). I remember looking back at the booth at almost every change, yet this is one of my favorite movies.

I guess you can take the boy out of the booth, but you can never take the booth out of the boy, if you know what I mean.

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 12-21-2010, 07:20 PM:

quote: Christian Appelt
The Dawn of Man backgrounds in 2001 were slides indeed, but not 35mm. They were shot and projected on 8x10 Ektachrome sheet film.

Right! The plates were projected against a silver screen on the sound stage. Incredible still today.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2010, 07:42 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
it was the night that the curtain tore while opening after the intermission

Now you've gone and embarrassed Guttag. The Uptown is supposed to be perfect.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-21-2010, 11:58 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Sorry but 60 of 150 people do not usually sit in the first 6 rows of the lower part of a stadium seating theatre

The few times I have seen 2001 in 70mm -- and even the times I have shown it in 35mm -- there were clusters of die-hards in the first few rows. They choose those seats because of the slit-scan sequence. It has nothing to do with wanting to be close to each other.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 01:00 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
The Uptown is supposed to be perfect.

The Uptown no longer exists.

quote: Brad Miller
Tom - was the movie that boring you felt the need to turn around and watch the projectionist??? Oh wait, we are talking about half an hour of apes grunting and flinging poo aren't we? Maybe the projectionist's job was more entertaining.

2001 is playing over 125 shows in Toronto. All are reel to reel, not a changeover of 3-4 reels, but instead each reel one by one. This is significant IMO. Thats why I wanted to observe how it was shown.

The projectors had a computer betweeen them and I was curious to know if the changeover of reel was manual or auto. It was manual as he was right there doing it. I only watched the second reel to reel changeover and then the intermission.

Furthermore. the projectionist cleaned the port glass and lenses between intermission. I was shocked at the level of care they were giving this screening, seeing how TIFF is supposed to take movies seriously, I didn't think they go to this extreme.

quote: Tim Asten
I dont think this is the issue. The thought of a professional projectionist (I assume he is a professional if he is running an expensive 70mm print) carefully monitoring a show from the start of the show, right through the changeovers to the very last end credit would give the technically aware customer a sense that he is a VIP and not just a ticket number.

Yes it was like we were treated to something special. I personally have never seen film projection done this perfect.

Just an FYI for those who care. The equipment being used in cinema #1 at the TIFF Lightbox is:

Kinoton FP 75E dual-format projector
Christie CP2230 digital projector
Dolby 3D
Dolby CP650 digital processor
Meyer Sound with vivid surrounds and absolutely clear audio separation

You could see the three projectors lined up one by one by one.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-22-2010, 01:58 AM:

Tom, these days when a new 70mm print is struck, the studios typically require changeover operation without splicing reels together for fear people will start chopping off frames during the build-up/breakdown process. That is why it was ran on shipping reels. They aren't even permitted to "double up" the reels onto larger ones. Its the "do not cut the film or splice" aspect that they are worried about. If the booth had 2 projectors and 2 platters, they could've most certainly ran changeover in that manner.

In my screening room I have the automation setup so I can run reels 1-2-3 on the left projector, then reels 4-5-6 on the right...OR I can assemble the prints leaders intact 1-3-5 and 2-4-6 and the automation will perform a seamless changeover bouncing back and forth each reel, then jogging down to the starting frame of the next reel. This way if desired the entire show can be run without a projectionist, with frame-accurate changeovers, and never cutting a leader. There are lots of ways to do it. [thumbsup]

As far as the projectionist cleaning the port glass and lenses twice each show, he is foolish. They will not become dirty over the course of an hour or so. All of that over-cleaning is damaging to the optics.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 02:02 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
That is why it was ran on shipping reels

I don't think it was a shipping reel. It had a lot of space on the reel left empty.

And we will find out how they present "Playtime" as I will be seeing it in 70mm next week.

quote: Brad Miller
They will not become dirty over the course of an hour or so.

Well, we don't know. He might clean it every intermission. 2001 only played once on Monday.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-22-2010, 02:05 AM:

Tom, a standard 70mm shipping reel when loaded with a polyester dts print can hold 40 minutes quite easily. That is why the reels looked so empty.

Playtime has the same rules on no-splicing. Prepare to be more entertained by the projectionist for sure on this one. [Razz]

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 02:06 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Tom, a standard 70mm shipping reel when loaded with a polyester dts print can hold 40 minutes quite easily. That is why the reels looked so empty.

That is news to me. I didn't know that. Thank you!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-22-2010, 03:02 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The Glendale played 2001 for two years during the intial engagement just so you know.

Indeed it did. In fact, Toronto was one of five cities in North America during the original roadshow release of "2001: A Space Odyssey" to run the film longer than one year and the only one to exceed two years. The total run at the Glendale was an amazing 127 weeks.

quote: Toronto Star, Nov. 3, 1970
Space Odyssey ends 127-week run
The science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey finished its Toronto run at the Glendale Theatre last night with its 1,310th performance. D.K. Watts, director of advertising for Twentieth Century Theatre, said the 127 weeks in one theatre surpassed the run of every other theatre in the world. More than 400,000 people went to the 708-seat Toronto theatre and paid $1.25 million. Space Odyssey left to make way for the world premiere of The Song of Norway.

----------------

quote: Bill Gabel
Warner Bros. has evidently just found 17 minutes of Lost Footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey in their Kansas salt-mine vault. Kubrick cut the film after the NYC premiere at the Loew's Capitol Theatre from 160 minutes to around 141 minutes.

Not to nit-pick, but "2001: A Space Odyssey" had its world premiere in Washington, DC, not New York.

The DC opening was on April 2nd, 1968; it opened in New York the next night and in L.A. the night after that. Then...Kubrick cut the film.

And what can be concluded from this is that audiences in those three initial cities, for at least a few days, were able to see the longer, original cut of the film. (All subsequent bookings presumably were the shortened cut.)

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 03:16 AM:

quote:
quote: Toronto Star, Nov. 3, 1970Space Odyssey ends 127-week run
The science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey finished its Toronto run at the Glendale Theatre last night with its 1,310th performance. D.K. Watts, director of advertising for Twentieth Century Theatre, said the 127 weeks in one theatre surpassed the run of every other theatre in the world. More than 400,000 people went to the 708-seat Toronto theatre and paid $1.25 million. Space Odyssey left to make way for the world premiere of The Song of Norway.

----------------

That is just impressive. I wonder if it was the original print? Was it 70mm or 35mm?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-22-2010, 07:09 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The Uptown no longer exists.

We're talking the Uptown in Washington D.C., which is still there and the theatre the movie premiered in. I'm familiar with the Uptown in Toronto, used to be on Younge Street, and it was a damn fine theatre. Rick Long was the projectionist there for a long time.

quote:
Space Odyssey left to make way for the world premiere of The Song of Norway.

One of the best movies ever made closed so to bring in one of the biggest piles of [bs]

ever made. Jesus wept.

Hey, Tom, since you're hooked up with this place, is Lawrence of Arabia going to be on 70mm next week? Might be worth a trip up.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 09:44 AM:

quote: Mark Ogden
Hey, Tom, since you're hooked up with this place, is Lawrence of Arabia going to be on 70mm next week? Might be worth a trip up.

Yes it is playing. Not sure if I will see it. 227min running time is long.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-22-2010, 10:08 AM:

Not to nit-pick too, but I never said World Premiere. I just said after the NYC Premiere that the cuts were done. For many people already know it had its world premiere in DC.

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 12-22-2010, 12:04 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Yes it is playing. Not sure if I will see it. 227min running time is long.

Tom, don't let the long running time fool you. It flies by and it would be another 70mm reel-to-reel presentation.

You enjoyed 2001 in 70mm? You'll LOVE Larry in 70. It's one of the greats and I would kill to see it projected that way (I have only seen a few bad 35mm reduction prints).

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-22-2010, 01:26 PM:

I saw 2001 at the Uptown in DC the first Sunday matinee following the world premier. If I remember correctly there were long drawn out shots of Discovery traversing the screen that seemed to have been shortened in the later release. I distinctly remember someone commenting in the newspaper that this film was "the stuff for 7-year olds".

I also ran 2001 in 70mm a few years later at the MacAuther. During the opening credits the Cinerama snipe had been replaced with a 70mm one.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-22-2010, 04:19 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Tom, these days when a new 70mm print is struck, the studios typically require changeover operation without splicing reels together for fear people will start chopping off frames during the build-up/breakdown process.

Not sure how this Practise applies here in the UK as most venues use Platter for 70mm Screenings and certainly the Pictureville Cinema in Bradford (Widescreen Weekend venue) have never used two Projectors for new 70mm DTS Prints.

When "2001" was re-issued in 2001, Warners sent out a Cinema Engineer and a representive to ensure the Film was presented correctly when it was screened anywhere in 70mm.

Several months ago "2001" was screened in the NFT1 at BFI in London and no doubt was sold out (again) as before and this year the Cinema was fitted out with a pair of new Kinoton DP75 (E?) and the results I hear were impressive!.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-2010, 04:32 PM:

I thought this was a movie review? Let's talk about the movie.

It's boring and the false-color effects are extremely dated. That sequence is also far too long, but they didn't know any better back then because editing hadn't been invented yet.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 08:45 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
the Cinerama snipe had been replaced with a 70mm one.

During the credits of the print that I saw, it does say Cinemaa, Super Panavision 70 as well as www.warnerbros.com at the end.

No mention of DTS.

quote: Joe Redifer
It's boring and the false-color effects are extremely dated. That sequence is also far too long, but they didn't know any better back then because editing hadn't been invented yet.

Have you seen 2001 in a cinema or in 70mm?

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 12-22-2010, 09:13 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
OR I can assemble the prints leaders intact 1-3-5 and 2-4-6 and the automation will perform a seamless changeover bouncing back and forth each reel, then jogging down to the starting frame of the next reel.

Holy crap, you rock.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-22-2010, 09:23 PM:

I did see 2001 in 70mm on a two and half story high deeply curved screen in about 1981.This was the Park theater in London Ontario which was always kept up to the highest standard for the big films like Star Wars and such.
The print was a bit beat up but had good color and sound though nothing in comparison to The Empire Strikes Back which had played for months before.
The fact that 2001 was shot in 65mm made a big impression on me!It was so clear it's criminal that every big film is not shot in 65mm!
I did not get the last part of the film until i read the book which helped quite a bit.

It's not the same in any other lesser format!

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-22-2010, 09:31 PM:

quote:
I did see 2001 in 70mm on a two and half story high deeply curved screen in about 1981.This was the Park theater in London Ontario which was always kept up to the highest standard for the big films like Star Wars and such.
The print was a bit beat up but had good color and sound though nothing in comparison to The Empire Strikes Back which had played for months before.
The fact that 2001 was shot in 65mm made a big impression on me!It was so clear it's criminal that every big film is not shot in 65mm!
I did not get the last part of the film until i read the book which helped quite a bit.

It's not the same in any other lesser format!

Seeing 2001 for the first time on the big screen really changed my opinion of this film. As much as I thought it was great, the pacing really feels different in the theatre.

Also equally important was a having a crowd in there. Perfect projection also helped as well.

Watching it on a big screen is a totally different prespective than watching the film alone at home on a smaller screen.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-2010, 10:54 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Have you seen 2001 in a cinema or in 70mm?

Nope, but I'm sure it would be just as boring and lack just as much editing. False color flyovers and eyeballs might have done the trick for the hippies back in the 60's, but that shit don't cut it today. I can't even appreciate it on a cheese factor because it is way overdone.

Also, I hate hippies. Everyone should.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-22-2010, 11:55 PM:

Hippies smell funny...

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-23-2010, 11:06 AM:

I doubt if new credits were struck for the TIFF reprint. DTS did not exist when the film came out. Nowadays I don't know - and doubt - if any lab can do the mag coating and recording. DTS is the only mainstream option for 70mm sound unless you're showing archive mag prints. The sound quality of 70mm mag is potentially very good, but properly setting up for a mag print playback requires alignment film that was produced for and shipped with the new print. This alignment film has basically all been lost. Some still exist locked away at service companies, but even with them a decades old print will have mag tracks of dubious quality. I did a lot of 70mm projection back in the 70's when prints and even the setup loops were available, but the mag tracks were often damaged by magnetized heads or had weird rhythmic pops and clicks from magnetized gunk stuck on projector rollers. I doubt if archive prints have much mag sound left at all, or much any colour left for that matter.
If you want to see the epitome of 70mm image quality without 60's psychedelia and grunting apes try and get a print of Ryan's Daughter struck.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 12-23-2010, 11:53 AM:

The 2001 print playing in T.O. is DTS, no one does Mag stripping anymore... the last 70mm Mag stripped film was probably Vertigo or My Fair Lady. That being said we played a bunch of old 70mm prints from the 60's at out last festival and all the mag tracks played back fine. That included Chitty Chitty Bang Bang from 1968! an a Place to Stand from 1967.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2010, 01:56 PM:

Mag striping can still be done and is often still done for small runs (one or two prints). 2001 having a DTS track with a small print run is more of the oddity.

Mag tracks, over time, actually hold up VERY well and are one of the more reliable storage methods for audio. Can they be damaged? Sure can but that isn't a necessity.

-Steve

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-23-2010, 02:10 PM:

quote: Dave Macaulay
If you want to see the epitome of 70mm image quality without 60's psychedelia and grunting apes try and get a print of Ryan's Daughter struck.

There is one new 70mm Print for "Ryan's Daughter", but is run with Sep Mag and only screens at the BFI in London.

Saw this Screening several years ago and WOW, blows out any Digital stuff off the screen for Quality!.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-01-2011, 09:47 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
The total run [of "2001: A Space Odyssey"] at the Glendale was an amazing 127 weeks.

quote: Tom Petrov
That is just impressive. I wonder if it was the original print?

Could you clarify what you mean by "original print"? Do you mean: I wonder if they ran the same print the entire run? Or do you mean: I wonder if they ran the longer cut of the film before Kubrick had it shortened?

quote: Tom Petrov
Was it 70mm or 35mm?

It was 70mm promoted as Cinerama.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-01-2011, 09:56 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
Could you clarify what you mean by "original print"? Do you mean: I wonder if they ran the same print the entire run? Or do you mean: I wonder if they ran the longer cut of the film before Kubrick had it shortened

Same print from beginning of engagement to end.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-10-2011, 08:51 PM:

Glendale was 1st class in those days. I did several studio screenings there around 1980. There is no doubt that only one print was needed. Louis

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-12-2011, 04:56 PM:

"2001: A Space Odyssey" will be playing in 70MM at the Museuem of the Moving Image in Astoria (Queens) , NY at 4pm Saturday, Jan. 15th.. Playing before it at 1pm also in 70MM "Playtime". (Sep Adm)

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-12-2011, 06:38 PM:

The print showing in New York is the same (new) print that was just screened in Toronto.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-13-2011, 04:56 PM:

quote: Daniel Schulz
The print showing in New York is the same (new) print that was just screened in Toronto.

Anyone know what 70mm print is showing at the Egyptian in Hollywood next Friday (Jan 21)? I had vowed never to see this movie at a theatre again after the thoroughly trashed print shown a couple of years ago, but if it's new...

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-13-2011, 04:26 AM:

On Seeing Kubrick's '2001' in the Theater for the First Time 20 COMMENTS An experience I won't soon forget

2001:at Cinerama

Yesterday and today Seattle's Cinerama is having a mini sci-fi festival showing Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, James Cameron's Avatar and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Based on the headline and image to the right I'm sure you've already figured out what film I watched.

This was my first time seeing any Stanley Kubrick film in the theater, let alone 2001, and it was one of those movie going experiences I won't soon forget. It's a completely different experience watching it on a screen nearly 70 feet wide and with Cinerama's all new digital sound system.

As I watched I forgot about any interpretation of the material I may have had and was instead swept up by the sheer size and scope of the production. You can't help but become absorbed by the film as soon as Ligeti's " Atmospheres" plays over a black screen for the film's the Overture leading into Richard Strauss's " Also Sprach Zarathustra". It's one of film's grand moments.

I sat about eight rows back from the front, dead center. Typically this is a seat reserved for those that arrived late, but for this film, in this theater it was enveloping. I couldn't imagine a better seat. 2001 affords you the opportunity to look from one side of the screen to the other as it curls itself around its audience, first with the wordless mysteries of the ape, to the all encompassing blackness of space and finally a light display culminating in the star-filled embryonic fluid of the infinite.

As far as my personal interpretation of the film goes I see it as a circle of life story offering an alternative, or parallel, look at human evolution from ape, to present day man, to something currently unimaginable. These are ideas that can be pit alongside Darwin's theory of evolution and the Bible's story of creationism and in searching for the thoughts of others that have discussed this online I came across an essay by Don MacGregor titled "2001 and the Philosophy of Nietzsche" that I found particularly fascinating.

MacGregor's essay adds context and comparisons to what are my thoughts on the film exactly. His knowledge of Friederick Nietzsche's book, "Also Sprach Zarathustra", is knowledge I don't have and its influence on 2001 is undeniable when you read MacGregor's breakdown. Here are three key segments that stood out to me:

The Nietzschean idea seems to have its origin in Darwin's theory of natural selection. Nietzsche saw life as "a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, strength is the only virtue, and weakness the only fault." According to Nietzsche, the evolution of man will travel through three stages: primitive man (ape), modern man, and ultimately, superman. Of this, Nietzsche wrote "what is the ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be to the superman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment." Man is just a bridge between ape and superman, but for the superman to be, man must use his will to make it happen, "a will to procreate or a drive to an end, to something higher and farther." [...]

In the journey from primitive man to superman, the monolith on the moon in 2001 marks a major moment. In the scene with the moon monolith, the sun is pictured directly overhead when the monolith emits a loud noise (perhaps to signal the arrival of this moment). This moment is described by Nietzsche as "the noon when man stands the middle of his way between beast and superman…a way to a new morning", the first morning of the superman. [...]

The superman is reached at the end of 2001. In the final scenes, the astronaut, David Bowman, lies on his deathbed. He wills the superman into existence before expiring. "'I love him who willeth the creation of something beyond himself and then perisheth' said Zarathustra."

There's always been a fascination with 2001 despite receiving mixed reviews upon its initial release in 1968. It has since grown to become considered one of the greatest films of all-time. I first saw it in 2007 at home. I marveled at the effects and the grandiosity of it all, but even though I enjoyed it I was unaware of what I was missing seeing it only on a 50" plasma rather than on a 68' movie screen. No film has ever given me a theatrical experience the way this one did yesterday. Should you be given the chance to do the same I highly suggest you don't pass up the opportunity.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-13-2011, 10:05 AM:

according to Seattle's Cinerama's facebook page, both 'Close Encounters' AND '2001' used/projected the bluray of both films onto the big screen.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-15-2011, 07:44 AM:

Now THERE's something I'd fly right out to Seattle to see. [puke]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-15-2011, 07:49 PM:

Having both seen and run it in 70mm on a big curved screen, 2001 remains a movie-going experience I won't soon forget.

The Blu-ray looks great on the 34" LCD in the living room - but I don't think I'd want to see even the best BD blown up on a Cinerama-sized screen. I'll join Frank in a shared reaction: [puke]

Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 02-17-2011, 04:18 AM:

I went and saw it. It was soft but surprisingly good for a 70 foot screen. Ive seen it in 70mm 15 times and no it wasnt close. But then again, what is?

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-17-2011, 03:40 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
according to Seattle's Cinerama's facebook page, both 'Close Encounters' AND '2001' used/projected the bluray of both films onto the big screen.

So this is the Future "Digital Cinema Experience" [dlp]

DVD at 1080P [Eek!]

on a Big Screen.

Look's that I will stay at home and watch some of the "Real" 70mm stuff, so if they would like to forward their Reduntant 70mm prints to me......... [Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-18-2011, 05:54 PM:

Not meaning to nit-pick, but it wasn't [dlp]

DVD, it was [dlp]

BluRay.

There's a pretty big difference.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-18-2011, 06:04 PM:

Yah, and there is a GARGANTUMUNGOUS difference between BluRay and 70mm.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-18-2011, 06:08 PM:

True also...but not in all cases.

I fully expect the BluRay of 'Pink Floyd: The Wall' to beat the pants off the shitty 70mm blow-ups they made of that title.

It wouldn't take much.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-18-2011, 06:46 PM:

Did the 70mm blow ups of The Wall look bad for a blow up?
How about the sound?
I only ever saw 35mm mag and optical stereo but it looked and sounded great!

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-19-2011, 04:06 AM:

quote: John Wilson
I fully expect the BluRay of 'Pink Floyd: The Wall' to beat the pants off the shitty 70mm blow-ups they made of that title.

May be on a smaller screen, but certainly not on the title subject on this Tread that had been filmed on 65mm and projected on a 70ft screen!.

And also since when the BluRay DVD is considered as a Video Format for Commercial Cinemas?, it is a Consumer Product and is fine for HD Screenings for Film Festivals etc where no option of 35mm prnts or 2K versions.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-19-2011, 10:50 PM:

yet WHEN are studios going to port their restorations and release them in 2K or 4K harddrive form?? It seems maybe a tad premature at the moment but, with both 4K LCoS and 4K DLP, wouldn't theatres that actually make the change over to digital projection want to be able to actually get older films not in print form but 'digitally' - I wish Warners had released the 4K restoration of 'North By Northwest' to select theatres nation wide instead of just the industry one-off showing. Seattle's Cinerama also had shown 2K DCP screenings of 'The African Queen' and 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' - I've not seen the former on blu, but the Hidef transfer I saw of Tiffany's (on HDNet Movies) was really remarkable.

as for 'Pink Floyd The Wall' on HDNet Movies, the print had alot of imperfections, if and when the movie gets released on bluray, I'd assume and hope these are optically cleaned up/removed.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-20-2011, 09:41 AM:

More and more titles are getting the DCP treatment from the "Catalog" titles. However, the business of keeping something available in DCP form is not as easy or as cheap as one would think. Believe it or not...it is easier to keep a title in film form for long term preservation and merely print that to a print or digital when it is needed.

Of course, I would perfer if they just keep a few prints in circulation for those theatres that cater to the classics. They all have film projectors and many are installing/have changeover systems to be able to run said movies.

2001 is not going to be adequately represented by even 4K digital, for what its worth.

-Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2011, 03:09 PM:

For rep titles that don't have very many plays each year, once a DCP has been created, there really isn't any reason why 2-3 hard drives that were shipped out to playdates can not be kept "on the shelf". In the space it takes to store 1 35mm print, 3 DCPs could be stored ready-to-ship.

For something like Rocky Horror, additional drives could be produced around October if it was deemed not worth storing them throughout the rest of the year. Of course this is a bad example because most theaters running RHPS wouldn't have digital anyway.

Sure over time the hard drives will get beaten around enough so they won't spin up and function, but then again the 35mm print typically suffers from additional wear with most bookings.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-20-2011, 03:16 PM:

I would say titles like Its a Wonderful Life would fit Brads model better. First off...you know there are going to be requests EACH year so the need to have any great effort for keeping the DCP version usable isn't needed and when Christmas rolls around...make the dupes on DCP for those theatres that want it...then repurpose those drives once the Holidays are over and then repeat next year.

However, there are some titles that do not get such a cyclical demand. While film prints can and do get beat up, they can be stored pretty cheaply and for a long time and the prints themselves have a useful life of many playdates.

-Steve

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-22-2011, 10:58 AM:

the reason I ask, is that with the Uptown theatre here in DC shifting over to a DLP unit and getting rid of it's 35/70mm projector - they are essentially stuck with what's only available in harddrive form, not that they show anything that's not new, but still - I get the sense they shot themselves in the foot (but hey it's AMC what do they care?).

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2011, 11:48 PM:

2001 is back at the Tiff Lightbox this Christmas for 10 screenings. I am probably going to head down once again as I can watch this movie at least once per year...seeing it in 70mm will eventually come to an end, so might as well see it again.

Is anyone interested in attending?

As showing is Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang for one matinee showing.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 11-08-2011, 09:41 AM:

TIFF owns the print so I'm sure they will play it for years to come, specially since they just installed 70mm projectors last year.

The Chitty Chitty print we played up in Gatineau. Its in great shape, with great mag sound, but is faded as its an original print.

quote: Tom Petrov
2001 is back at the Tiff Lightbox this Christmas for 10 screenings. I am probably going to head down once again as I can watch this movie at least once per year...seeing it in 70mm will eventually come to an end, so might as well see it again.

Is anyone interested in attending?

As showing is Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang for one matinee showing.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-08-2011, 06:33 PM:

This is going way OT, but it's funny you should mention this place, Tom. I had been dying to check it out, and was having dinner on King Street last week and stopped by to see a screening of A Clockwork Orange, which was billed as a new print. I thought to myself "state-of-the-art cinema, new print, change-over screening off Kinotons, I'm really going to SEE something here!" It turned to be a wretched experience. The picture started without sound and ran that way for a couple of minutes, when the sound did come on it was harsh as hell with little to no bottom, the print was soft and low in contrast, and somebody marked the (automated?) reel changes in grease pencil, for chrissakes (I noticed that the guy was running two changeover shows at once: Clockwork in Cinema One and The Innocents in #2). I gave up after three reels. I've been thinking about this in light of the Ebert thread, while I don't wish to judge this place too harshly from one bad show, a little bit of my feelings for film died that night too. It didn't help that I had been seeing great looking digital shows at the AMC Yonge and the Cineplex Varsity leading up to that.

Oh well. Beautiful building, though. I left much money at the gift shop, they had the whole series of BFI books.

[

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2011, 11:49 PM:

quote:
This is going way OT, but it's funny you should mention this place, Tom. I had been dying to check it out, and was having dinner on King Street last week and stopped by to see a screening of A Clockwork Orange, which was billed as a new print. I thought to myself "state-of-the-art cinema, new print, change-over screening off Kinotons, I'm really going to SEE something here!" It turned to be a wretched experience. The picture started without sound and ran that way for a couple of minutes, when the sound did come on it was harsh as hell with little to no bottom, the print was soft and low in contrast, and somebody marked the (automated?) reel changes in grease pencil, for chrissakes (I noticed that the guy was running two changeover shows at once: Clockwork in Cinema One and The Innocents in #2). I gave up after three reels. I've been thinking about this in light of the Ebert thread, while I don't wish to judge this place too harshly from one bad show, a little bit of my feelings for film died that night too. It didn't help that I had been seeing great looking digital shows at the AMC Yonge and the Cineplex Varsity leading up to that.

Hi Mark, thanks for the response. I would give it another shot, I have seen Playtime 70mm, 2001 70mm and Enter the Void in Digital. All three were flawless.

I did however check out a little bit of Taxi Driver which looked horrible in their upstairs smaller cinema.

Did you see a movie at Tiff after you saw my review or did you stumble on my review after the movie?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-09-2011, 05:18 AM:

I get to Toronto a few times a year to visit friends, and was aware that the place was being built. Though I stay up near Yorkville, I usually get down around the King/Richmond street area at some point, either for dinner or to see a movie at the Scotiabank, which HAS to be North America's ugliest multiplex. I'm sure that I'll be in the TIFF again at some point. probably the next time they have Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-09-2011, 10:55 PM:

Well, I say check out 2001. They showed it reel-to-reel, intermission and everything. Playtime was also good but nowhere near as stunning as 2001.

It is nice to hear someone elses opinion on the Tiff Lightbox even if it is not positive. I don't think theatre is making money with the programming they have going.

quote: Mark Ogden
the Scotiabank, which HAS to be North America's ugliest multiplex.

Haha, the Scotiabank was Famous Players flagship Toronto theatre for a while there, I think its been around for close to 15 years now. Its used to be called the Paramount and featured 4 THX Certified cinemas, a 15/70 IMAX as well. Not Cineplex got their hands on it and it now is mostly digital, Ultra AVX...the 15/70 is still used but it won't be for too much longer.