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: 6865
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 # 53.
#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.
Yes, and that is a simple but BEST argument one can make for cynicism. WHY wouldn't that photo have been festooning every front page, magazine, and book by the latest, the early 1970s?? WHY wasn't there a spread of these types of photos THEN?? WHY wouldn't subsequent Apollo missions MAKE IT A PRIORITY to develop special lens and filters and snap thousands of these types of photos, including MUCH clearer, more definitive shots of the moonscape?
WHY wasn't there a spread of these types of photos THEN?? Contrary to your impressions, only the first Apollo mission was followed closely by the public. After that, nada. Few people even know which Apollo mission was the last one. Do you? Here's another shot, this time from Apollo 15. Notice the lunar rover they used for the last 3 moon missions. Also that big-ass mountain and the shadows on it. Later missions were more adventurous about where they landed. By the time the last one came along, they were doing extensive geology field work miles away from their lunar lander. But by then, no one was watching. No one knows any of their names either.
Few people even know which Apollo mission was the last one. Do you? Well, we are in complete agreement that the first Apollo mission was followed extremely closely. Many of us still recall watching that fuzzy transmission that was so disappointing and so "meh." Yes, the public followed the Apollo mission in so far as they were allowed to "follow" it. (which is to say, minimal info was released, including technical, photographically, as well as insulation of personal interviews, testimony, and impressions by and of the astronauts.) For having just succeeding at completing THE greatest feat by humans ever, this accomplishment was under-reported and when it was reported it was measured and controlled to the extreme. This should have had the nation and world buzzing for YEARS afterward. But as you note, it lost its fizz quickly. COULD the reason be...the public was starved of info by design? (Because the entire project IF scrutinized would have failed to answer too many obviously un-answerable questions?) In this case the MSM as The Messenger either had no message, OR was ordered to stand down on continued close reporting. Till the day he died, Neil Armstrong never gave more than a bland, non-detailed, uninspired account of his "accomplishment." And NO real interview. Odd, wouldn't you say? Meanwhile Buzz Aldrin, the supposed second man to walk on he moon by many accounts had mental problems afterward. WHY?? Can you or anyone explain why so few photographs were released of the Earth from the Moon? EVER? Where is the video? And yes, isn't it curious how and why after the alleged first "Lunar Landing" subsequent landings were so obviously ignored by Media and documentarians? Later missions were more adventurous about where they landed. By the time the last one came along, they were doing extensive geology field work miles away from their lunar lander. But by then, no one was watching. No one knows any of their names either. Yes, it was noted that after the first Apollo mission, no one was watching. They were virtually ignored. CONSPICUOUSLY SO. One naturally must ask: "WHY WAS THIS THE CASE??" I don't buy, "Meh. Been there, done that." Or boredom. And yes, the identities of subsequent astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon *should* have been known. WELL KNOWN. But, for another odd reason they weren't, aren't, and NOT interviewed, haven't written books on the experience, etc. Conspicuous indeed. The public had initially been served up a few foggy photographs; Armstrong's "First steps for mankind" was aired on a tape delay, the video abysmally obscured and fuzzy. If anything, the public should have been far more hungry for additional video and info from the moon. Most were. But since the Media is THE conduit from which "news" is disseminated, the public's hunger for additional data and pictures was unrequited forever more. As if the Gummint and NASA said, "Here's a teaspoon of what we've accomplished of THE most AMAZING FEAT IN HUMAN HISTORY. That's should suffice." I ask: Does this make any sense?? Is there any video or film FROM the moon and the view of planet Earth from any of the Apollo projects? It should be voluminous. AND clear. But if there were issues of problems with photography or video, why then wouldn't they have been resolved with special lens? If we could send a man to the moon, why could they solve the lens problem?? From a technical and safety aspect, just how did those astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
I don't care. I also don't care about your Truthery moon landing CTs.
I don't care. More NASA staff coming forward about Apollo, acknowledging the Van Allen Belts USAF Col. Terry Virts, ISS Commander, NASA astronaut "We only can fly in Earth orbit." “Well, that is a great question. The plan that NASA has is to build a rocket called SLS (Space Launch System) which is a heavy-lift rocket, it is something that is much bigger than what we have today and it will be able to launch the Orion capsule with humans on board as well as landers or other components to destinations beyond earth orbit. Bill Kaysing John H. Mauldin has a bachelor's degree in engineering physics (Cornell University, master's in physics (Purdue University), and Ph.D. in science education (University of Texas). He has four books published in science and technology covering mathematical graphics in Perspective Design (1985; second edition now being prepared), physics in Particles in Nature (1986), solar energy in Sunspaces (1987), and optics in Light, Lasers, and Optics (1988). He has taught physics and engineering at several colleges and universities, done education research and development at MIT and University of Texas, and worked at NASA in electronic power engineering on an early phase of the Voyager missions. Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding all around living organisms. Solar (or star) flares of protons, an occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give doses of hundreds to thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance of Earth [b-Lorr]. Such does are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. Death is likely after 500 REMs in any short time. The Apollo capsule was not even 1/10 meter thick, the Van Allen Belts have over 100 REM/hour, so the astronauts could not have survived going to the Moon.
I watched Capricorn One this evening and it's definitely a good movie... if you don't mind watching O.J. Simpson act. For a late 70's vintage movie it was very good with storyline and excitement. Afterwards I checked out some moon videos from Apollo. A longer one some 30 minutes long documents Apollo 16 moon landing. I watched carefully the movements of the astronauts for potential fakery, as gravity on the moon is much less than earth, and I could find nothing that seems unreal. There is a lot of footage of them walking, or actually hopping around, and certainly the Capricorn One method of faking weak gravity by slowing footage just wouldn't work. There's way to much of it. I remember one hoax claim talking about the dust kicked up by the moon buggy. Footage of that is included but I saw nothing that seemed wrong there. On to the Van Allen Radiation Belt. I searched and found this site discussing it with regard to the Apollo missions: It seems authoritative, and mentions that there are 2 belts, an inner one (well above the international space station orbit) and another farther out. Here's the key info: There's an artist rendering of the Van Allen belts on the site that won't embed here. I then checked Deckard's link which claimed we never made it to the moon in part due to the radiation belts, but sorry to say it seems to rely on quotes that may have been taken out of context and/or at worst, might not be anything more than a current NASA astronaut over embellishing space dangers, but in any event does not necessarily making a definitive statement that the Apollo missions could not have happened or never happened. All in all, I did not see any real science argued there, unlike the explanation above about how the Van Allen radiation belts were dealt with. So... it still seems to me there's little evidence the moon landings were faked.
I agree; Capricorn One was a compelling movie. Great plot. Plausible story line (wink-wink). OJ wasn't so much "acting" as being a name-prop. I've also looked at more footage of the Apollo missions than I ever intended with respective opinions on both sides of the issue of how and why we did go to the moon, and how and why we didn't. Though some of the footage I've seen is plausibly real, I'm still not convinced. The quality of video is still annoyingly inferior and not as clear as one might expect for 1972. After all, I just watched film of people and things from the 1920s that is crystal clear. Very odd that for (several) such historical missions to the moon that camera quality and film would not be a priority. Also, we don't see a 360 pan of the surroundings; Still no great shot of planet earth. (yes, I know there are a few.) And we never see a descent shot AS they are landing, nor blast off shot FROM the moon. They could have set up a camera ON the moon to demonstrate the entire blast off. But never did. They also could have replicated a landing to one of the original locations, which would have validated the prior landing. There is one vid in which the *sound* of a spike being hammered into the moon soil is echoed into the spacesuit speaker. HUH?? Regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belt, there are still too many sources that claim we can't get by it without exposing astronauts to fatal radiation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
#57. To: Liberator (#53)
Keep in mind that for every pound they want to put into earth orbit, it requires burning off 1000 pounds of fuel (or something of that scale) so anything and everything that made it to the moon had to be efficiently made to be not just as light as possible but also as compact as possible, and that could mean quality of video taking a hit. Yes they did. Obviously the camera would be unmanned and remotely controlled, but there's footage of both Apollo 16 & 17 blasting off. There are separate vids on youtube of both, and possibly more. Also, the only footage of landings possible was through a small window on the lunar module, and they did that too though not much to see except the shadow of the lander. But in that vid, streams of dust blowing away from the bottom of the lander seem to be visible. I don't know how much the lander would have weighed but of course it would have been much less on the moon, meaning less gas thrust to leave an impression under the lander. Assuming the landings were real, they would have had no motivation to waste a second trip going back to a place they already explored to satisfy completely unanticipated future doubts of authenticity. And be honest -- even they did, it certainly would not have convinced the skeptics today. I don't know where that one is, but I suggest the sound could have traveled through the hands & arms of the astronauts and reached the mic that way. From this minimal research I've done, I am more firmly convinced the doubts have been satisfied. But agreeing to disagree is often required to keep the peace. It won't be the last time I'm sure, so good enough.
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)
#27. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative (#25)
(Edited)
I gotta admit, this is a great photo, and one I've never seen before.
#33. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#27)
WHY wouldn't that photo have been festooning every front page, magazine, and book by the latest, the early 1970s??
#36. To: Tooconservative, pinguinite, Deckard, no gnu taxes (#33)
Contrary to your impressions, only the first Apollo mission was followed closely by the public. After that, nada.
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
From a technical and safety aspect, just how did those astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
#41. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#39)
From a technical and safety aspect, just how did those astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
"That's the farthest we can go."
"Moon, Mars, asteroids, there are a lot of destinations that we could go."
“Right now we can only fly in Earth orbit, that is the farthest that we can go. This new system that we are building is going to allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore, so the Moon, Mars, asteroids, there are a lot of destinations that we could go to and we’re building these building block components in order to allow us to do that eventually.”
NASA Contractor - Engineer 
Bill Kaysing, US Navy officer, USC graduate, Rocketdyne head of technical publications.
Author: We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle (1976)Dr. John H. Mauldin
PhD, Science Education, University of Texas; MS Physics, Purdue; BS Physics, Cornell
Worked on the NASA Voyager project
Prospects for Interstellar Travel - American Astronautical Society
#52. To: Deckard, Liberator (#41)
In the case of the Apollo missions, the solution was to minimize the [time inside the belts]. We can’t control the energy of those particles, though they can be large. The density of the Van Allen belts is well known (from sending uncrewed probes through them), and there are hotspots you can definitely avoid. In particular, the innermost belt is a rather tightly defined region, and it was possible to stay out of it for the trip to the Moon. The second belt is much larger, and harder to avoid, but there are still denser regions to avoid. For the Apollo trips, we wanted to send the astronauts through a sparse region of the belts, and to try and get through them quickly. This was necessary in any case; the crafts had to make it to the Moon in a reasonable amount of time, and the shorter the trip, the less exposure to all sorts of radiation the astronauts would get.
In the end, it seemed that these tactics worked; the on-board dose counters for the Apollo missions registered average radiation doses to the skin of the astronauts of 0.38 rad. This is about the same radiation dose as getting two CT scans of your head, or half the dose of a single chest CT scan; not too bad, though not something you should do every week.
#53. To: Pinguinite, Deckard (#52)
Replies to Comment # 53. The quality of video is still annoyingly inferior and not as clear as one might expect for 1972. After all, I just watched film of people and things from the 1920s that is crystal clear. Very odd that for (several) such historical missions to the moon that camera quality and film would not be a priority.
And we never see a descent shot AS they are landing, nor blast off shot FROM the moon. They could have set up a camera ON the moon to demonstrate the entire blast off. But never did.
They also could have replicated a landing to one of the original locations, which would have validated the prior landing.
There is one vid in which the *sound* of a spike being hammered into the moon soil is echoed into the spacesuit speaker. HUH??
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 53.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]