United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 2001: A Space Odyssey returning to theaters in 70mm for 50th anniversary
Source:
Consequence of Sound
URL Source: https://consequenceofsound.net/2018 ... -in-70mm-for-50th-anniversary/
Published: Apr 2, 2018
Author: Ben Kaye
Post Date: 2018-04-04 07:37:17 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6826
Comments: 67
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. (Read: Ranking: Every Stanley Kubrick Film from Worst to Best) 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. "Unrestored" version will feature no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
I found it boring.
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.
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.
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? Art imitating life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Thank for the link... BUT conspicuous from its absence: NO COLOR EARTH PHOTOS?? OR photos, period.
What do you mean? There are plenty of photos.
I gotta admit, this is a great photo, and one I've never seen before. And one that certainly should have been a common desktop background for NASA if they only had PC's back then. And..... looking at it closely, I also have to admit that the shadows of the cone object and some rocks do not seem to match up with the lighting of the earth. Where exactly would one infer the Sun to be located in this photo? From the way the earth is lighted, it would seem it should be behind the camera but almost directly overhead. But the shadows of the foreground objects suggest almost directly to the left, but elevated.... It could be this photo was doctored. Perhaps a merger with a legit foreground photo and a background earth by someone wanting to make an awesome photo... or by someone wanting to make the moon missions seem real.... or by someone who wanted to make the moon missions seem faked, if the maker intended the defect to be noticed. Where did you find this photo TC? Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, the earth would always be present at the same relative location in the moon's sky. If the Apollo mission of this photo could be determined, then the moon landing location could also be determined, which might debunk this photo as a fake. It also looks like the western part of the US and Pacific is visible in the photo, which would help ascertain the relative location on the moon this was supposedly taken. (I.e. it was not taken from either of the moon's poles). Edit: I haven't bothered to look it up, but on further thought, if this is real, it means NASA selected a moon landing site that is only edge visible from the earth, and I don't think they would have done that, given the high risk the mission already posed in that day. They would have instead chosen a site which would be much more easily visible from the earth and for which they would have had more confidence was safe to land on.
You seem to think that the moon is in a geosynchronous orbit. It isn't. Or we wouldn't have tidal effect at all.
No, tidally locked and geosynchronous orbit are not the same thing. The same side of the moon always faces the earth as the moon orbits the earth. That means if you go to the moon and sit down and watch the earth, it will always be in the same location in the moon sky It will not rise, it will not set. It will simply sit there, unmoving, except you will see it spin against a moving starry background. The sun will rise and set once per month, but the earth will not. In effect, the earth is in lunarsynchronous orbit around the moon the same way TV broadcast satellites are in geosychronous orbit around the earth. For that reason, the lunar landing sites will similarly never see the earth rise or set on them. As all the landing locations on the moon are near central on the moon as viewed from earth, the astronauts there would have had to look near straight up or somewhat close to straight up to see the earth and would never have seen the earth on the moon horizon, that no matter what time of month or year they would have gone there. That would explain why few, if any photos from the landing sites would include Earth in the background. I am of the opinion the moon landings were not faked, but I think the first photo you posted is faked.
But the moon can appear over the top of a nearby mountain. The last mission or two, they were near some smallish mountains.
Looking at the moon landing locations from the Sky & Telescope link, the attitude at which the earth would appear from those locations should be determinable from how close the locations are to the center of the moon. From dead center, one would need to look directly up to look back at the earth. From a site on the extreme horizon, the earth would also appear on the moon horizon, as the first photo depicted. The Apollo 17 spot looks a little more that midway off center, so I'd expect earth to appear about 40-45 degrees elevated off the horizon from there, quite possibly in camera frame with a mountain. It would take some geometry to figure out what the attitude of the earth would be from various spots but I don't doubt that some moon photos could show the earth above a mountain, at least for Apollo 17. But that's more doubtful for Apollo 16, as that site is more centered.
Back in high school, I think you liked all those problems in geometry class. You could probably invent a whole series of interesting geometry problems from those old moon photos. For instance, held at arm's length (3'), when seen from the moon, is the earth closer to the size of a golf ball, a tennis ball, a baseball, a softball, a soccer ball or a basketball? I'm thinking between the size of a softball and a soccer ball but I could be very wrong. And I'm too lazy to try to solve it with geometry after so many years. Notice that these are cropped and zoomed photos also, like a lot of those photos were. The earth occupies a very small portion of the sky when seen from the moon. Of course, the earth is only 8,000 miles in diameter and should look really small when viewed from over 250,000 miles away. And so you have Neil Armstrong with a telephoto lens to solve that problem. The earth when seen from the moon should look about 4 times bigger than the moon when seen from the earth.
Math was MY thing. I think I was the top student in all 4 of my geometry teacher's classes. I really struggled with English classes though. That was one thing I also noticed in the photo you posted. I don't think the earth would appear that big. But yes, a telephoto lens can make distant objects look bigger than they really are. From the image you posted, it seems earth would appear 4x wider, so you'd have to square that to get the area, making it take up 16x more of the night sky. Very noticeable and it would be a beautiful sight, especially compared to what the moon surface has to offer.
#46. To: Pinguinite (#45)
(Edited)
Yeah, I thought so. You talk like an engineer or math-lover. You collect facts for the purpose of rational problem-solving as a habit. We regularly see TV/films in which the sun rises or the moon is visible and they fill the entire screen (or more than fill it). Yet we don't object to those. Why shouldn't moonwalkers like the Apollo astronauts have the same artistic freedom to zoom in on the object of interest in a photo? "All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up." - Norma Desmond Anything with color would look good to a human on the moon. It didn't matter much back in the Sixties that the moon videos were only in black and white because that is all that the moon has anyway. Earth looks so beautiful over a lunar landscape because it does have the rich color we crave.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: IbJensen (#2)
I found it boring.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#10)
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.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#13)
People don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home.
#17. To: Liberator (#14)
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
#22. To: Liberator (#19)
BUT conspicuous from its absence: NO COLOR EARTH PHOTOS?? OR photos, period.
#25. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#22)
(Edited)
#32. To: Pinguinite (#25)
Since the moon is tidally locked to the earth, the earth would always be present at the same relative location in the moon's sky. If the Apollo mission of this photo could be determined, then the moon landing location could also be determined, which might debunk this photo as a fake.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#32)
You seem to think that the moon is in a geosynchronous orbit. It isn't. Or we wouldn't have tidal effect at all.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#35)
As all the landing locations on the moon are near central on the moon as viewed from earth, the astronauts there would have had to look near straight up or somewhat close to straight up to see the earth and would never have seen the earth on the moon horizon, that no matter what time of month or year they would have gone there.
#40. To: Tooconservative (#38)
But the moon can appear over the top of a nearby mountain. The last mission or two, they were near some smallish mountains.
#43. To: Pinguinite, Liberator (#40)
The Apollo 17 spot looks a little more that midway off center, so I'd expect earth to appear about 40-45 degrees elevated off the horizon from there, quite possibly in camera frame with a mountain. It would take some geometry to figure out what the attitude of the earth would be from various spots but I don't doubt that some moon photos could show the earth above a mountain, at least for Apollo 17. But that's more doubtful for Apollo 16, as that site is more centered.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#43)
Back in high school, I think you liked all those problems in geometry class.
You could probably invent a whole series of interesting geometry problems from those old moon photos. For instance, held at arm's length (3'), when seen from the moon, is the earth closer to the size of a golf ball, a tennis ball, a baseball, a softball, a soccer ball or a basketball? I'm thinking between the size of a softball and a soccer ball but I could be very wrong. And I'm too lazy to try to solve it with geometry after so many years.
Of course, the earth is only 8,000 miles in diameter and should look really small when viewed from over 250,000 miles away.
Replies to Comment # 45. Math was MY thing. I think I was the top student in all 4 of my geometry teacher's classes.
That was one thing I also noticed in the photo you posted. I don't think the earth would appear that big. But yes, a telephoto lens can make distant objects look bigger than they really are.
From the image you posted, it seems earth would appear 4x wider, so you'd have to square that to get the area, making it take up 16x more of the night sky. Very noticeable and it would be a beautiful sight, especially compared to what the moon surface has to offer.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]