"Unrestored" version will feature no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits"
If you’re half crazy all for the love of Stanley Kubrick’s sci-fi masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, you’re in luck. To mark its 50th anniversary, Warner Bros.’ is opening its archives’ pod bay doors to present a theatrical re-release of the film.
Docking in select theaters on May 18th, WB’s reissue is an “unrestored” 70mm print “struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” according to a studio statement (via The Wrap). “This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits.” That means the movie will be presented in a way that’s as close to Kubrick’s original vision as possible.
This new 70mm print will make its debut at Cannes Film Festival with an introduction from Christopher Nolan. The director called the chance to introduce one of his favorite works of cinema in “all its analog glory… an honor and a privilege.”
A fully restored version of 2001 will also be available on DVD and Blu-ray later this year. Revisit the original trailer below.
That's because it is boring. The overall plot is good -- an intelligent, self-learning computer figures out it has to take over the ship it's on, with the background of explaining man's origins -- but..... it's boring.
Many movies from that era are. Space travel at that time was the latest craze with the Apollo program & moon landings, and the emphasis of the movie was to dramatize space travel. They did that, but by today's evolved cinematic standards, 2001 is boring.
By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success.
Not that 2001 is a bad movie. It is what it is, and it still has a certain classical charm to it, especially with the sound track.
By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success.
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
Indeed, REAL space travel is certainly boring, stuck in a relatively small spaceship with nothing to do but monitor systems and maintain life support. If the idea is to make a movie about space travel as it would be in real life, the result will be a boring movie, and in that respect, 2001 certainly overplayed the excitement.
But people don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home. Documentaries are an exception, but 2001 was of course no documentary.
People don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home.
RE: "Realism."
NOT any "Moon Landing" in my opinion. It's easily the Top 3 of Greatest Charades.
For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh...
But...but...when da Gummint tells you "IT HAPPENED!!" it...er...happened!! Cuz they wouldn't lie, would they?
For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh...
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?)
THEN the photos need to be authorized and released to the general public (with proper permission.)
Q: Why hasn't this procedure already been addressed?
Perhaps like me you have scoured different sources to either validate or invalidate to "Moon Landings." We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular.
Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical
Then there are the directional lighting problems of the ship, undisturbed landing site -- just a plethora of technical problems that just don't add up. (just venting here.)
For SOME reason, we have been conditioned to just accept the word of NASA and Gummint: "WE WENT TO THE MOON. PERIOD. If you don't believe it you're a nut. Or worse: a CT."
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?)
Hehe... you are kind of big on this authority thing, aren't you?? :^)
The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself.
Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority.
We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular.
No, that's not true at all, as any film photographer could tell you. Or even a digital photographer, I imagine.
While yes, light from stars on those moon shots would certainly be entering the lens and could, in theory, be recorded along with all else, the problem is that the amount of starlight would be infinitesimal compared to the amount of light reflected from the moonscape, which would certainly be enormous given, again, the lack of atmosphere filtering the full sun. Image recording surfaces can only tolerate a certain amount of light. If it's not enough, nothing registers. If it's too much, then everything shows completely white. To get an actual image, the strength of the light has to be scaled to the sensitivity of the recording surface of whatever type.
For the moonscape photos, a light filter of some kind would need to be employed. That might only be the F-stop of the camera (the size of the pinhole near the lens controlling the amount of light enters the camera -- the camera's counterpart to the iris in the eye). Or it could instead be essentially sun glasses on the camera.
But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology.
Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard.
I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand.
Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Accepting claims blindly is certainly the way of man. All should indeed be considered and tested.
Hehe... you are kind of big on this authority thing, aren't you?? :^)
Kinda. :-)
In an age where the power of suggestion and technology combine to create Virtual Reality, without proven authorize sources -- as well as historical corroboration -- what have we?
The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself.
Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority.
Yes, IN THEORY, more than one observatory could corroborate each others findings while also corroborating alleged NASA "landing sites".
But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this.
Then there is the other factor to consider -- and this is no small one: The credibility of a Government-Science-Hollywood-Media Complex itself and agenda to alter "Reality" and perception OF Reality.
We are witnessing the degree to which these same forces have been allied, combining to successfully alter the mind-set of millions with respect to but hardly limited to "Global Warming," "History," the dramatic contrast in treatement of the past two Presidents, normalizing transvestism, cultural/scientific/social psyOps ad nauseam.
Now again -- if you and others prefer to focus solely on the validity of the alleged "Moon Landings", there is also the issue of negotiating what would have been the Van Allen Radiation Belt and non-protective flimsy "spacesuits" worn by Armstrong etal.
But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology.
Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard.
I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand.
I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions.
I find it frankly absurd to believe that NASA would not have included special filters for astronaut camera that would have addressed any "blazingly bright" problem that would have displayed ZERO stars in photos. Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen; On earth via observatories we are still having to view the cosmos through deep layers of atmosphere. Even on the clearest night.
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Is that the photo TC has uncovered?
There should be HUNDREDS of Moon-to-Earth photos. (Shouldn't there be??)
OF NOTE: Did you know Neil Armstrong has NEVER given in in depth interview with respect to his "Moon Landing" experience?
