"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.
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?
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.
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics.
I do not suggest we accept the word of anyone, or anything, claiming to be speaking for the truth. But that does not mean that anyone with an agenda is speaking lies. I very much favor studying content as part of making the determination of whether a claim is true or not. I will do it with the moon landing. And I will do it with the Bible. As an aside, why are you so quick to doubt the word of modern "authorities" about the moon landing, but accept without doubt the word of ancient biblical writers on the nature of God? How do you resolve that seeming inconsistency?
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.
I'm first to agree MSM can't be trusted. As a present example, I do not believe Russia or Putin was behind the Skripal nerve agent poisoning. It makes no sense at all. Of all Americans that have ill-regard for Putin, I'd say not one in 100 has ever heard or read a single word he's uttered. From what I have observed, Putin is a good man interested in peace, highly intelligent, doing great things for Russia, and very much on the defensive from Western expansionism over the last 15 years. He's also one we should be thankful is running Russia. If it were instead someone of the likes of Hillary, WW3 may have already started. Though some do claim he's murdered journalists, it appears from all else Putin is truly a good man at heart and deserves that considered possibility.
That aside, and back to topic.....
The penalty of discredit for an observatory would be severe. These are scientists, and about the worst crime scientists could be convicted of is purposely releasing false information about their science to the public as though it was real information. I am serious is saying that is a real deterrent. For the degree of conspiracy you propose, it would require extreme amount of trust for one compromised scientist to trust hundreds or thousands of other scientists to not debunk them.
This is not to say scientists cannot be biased in their research which can skew their results. They certainly can be. But I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about outright fraud.
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.
I've not researched those. Perhaps they are best left for another day.
I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions.
Perhaps also left for another discussion. But from what I currently understand, it's no surprise to me that no stars are visible on 1970's alleged moon landing photos.
Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen;
Which while obstructing no starlight, also obstructs no sun light. The moon surface would have been brighter than death valley at noon, so the relative difference in light strength would have been, more or less, the same.
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?
No, as "earth rise" was photoed from the lunar orbiter as earth appeared over a moon horizon. As the moon is tidally locked to earth, moon inhabitants would never see the earth rise as we on earth see the moon rise.
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.
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics.
Yup. I know you've made allowance for the possibility high-tech tampering and shenanigans that are so easy to pull off these days....
Planet Earth is seen in extremely hi-def in that photo as you noted, suggesting modern optics.
I do not suggest we accept the word of anyone, or anything, claiming to be speaking for the truth. But that does not mean that anyone with an agenda is speaking lies.
I very much favor studying content as part of making the determination of whether a claim is true or not. I will do it with the moon landing. And I will do it with the Bible. As an aside, why are you so quick to doubt the word of modern "authorities" about the moon landing, but accept without doubt the word of ancient biblical writers on the nature of God? How do you resolve that seeming inconsistency?
There is of course validity to what you claim on the subject of agendas that aren't necessarily based on lies. The claims *could* be made on what is perceived as THE truth, which we agree isn't the same.
With respect to the claims of the Bible and the matter of "inconsistencies," can you be more specific? For now I'll briefly (for me) address it/them. But we have other ground to cover as well :-)
Yes, belief in Scripture from Adam and Eve to Jesus' Resurrection and Return, AND Gospel requires faith. But then I would also submit that NO belief or claims in history are as sourced with multiple testimony and proof of corroboration. Bible-believing people are NOT robotic zombies who do not seek truth and scientific evidence. That is purely myth.
IF the subject of "truth" surely interests you -- and you've already stated that it does indeed -- I highly recommend the purchase a Study Bible -- 'The MacArthur Study Bible' specifically. You would be blown away by its attention to the most minute of detail and corroboration of fact and testimony; questions you now doubt still have. You see, one can read the Bible from cover-to-cover and STILL not understand much of it (ironically.)
Any comparison of measuring the same criteria of questions and answers with respect to the Bible to those of NASA to be frank is ludicrous (with all due respect.) One is 100% transparent and backed up by eye-witness testimony -- more amazing in that the tabs were maintained for thousands of years BY NAME, DEED, and chronology. The account is told, learned and believed by Free Will.
The other is supported by fuzzy details, minimal corroboration and testimony as well as by political and economic motivation and coercion. It does NOT welcome scrutiny. NASA dismisses challenges and demands for details. ANY and ALL Truth must stand up to strict standards of extreme scrutiny.
With respect to the scribes aka "men" of the Bible (the Author is God Himself), they and the prophets spoke and transcribed God's own words. Many have conceded this; There is no subterfuge here.
Bible Scribes vs. NASA Advocates. Are they really analogous? One abides in The Altruistic and Spiritual at the highest degree vs. the Other which operates from a Material/Ppolitical/Scientific agenda. As a positive aside, I could also say the same Altruistic goals motivates those like you who believe in "The Newton Model" in principle -- even though I don't subscribe to its "model."
While I don't believe those who subscribe to the "Moon Landings" are necessarily anti-altruistic or subscribe to a particular agenda, they may be prone to accepting 'authority" without too closely examining or scrutinizing the facts or "proof" OR...the possibility/plausibility of political/economic agendas. Again, this is merely MY opinion.
I'm first to agree MSM can't be trusted. As a present example, I do not believe Russia or Putin was behind the Skripal nerve agent poisoning. It makes no sense at all. Of all Americans that have ill-regard for Putin, I'd say not one in 100 has ever heard or read a single word he's uttered. From what I have observed, Putin is a good man interested in peace, highly intelligent, doing great things for Russia, and very much on the defensive from Western expansionism over the last 15 years. He's also one we should be thankful is running Russia. If it were instead someone of the likes of Hillary, WW3 may have already started. Though some do claim he's murdered journalists, it appears from all else Putin is truly a good man at heart and deserves that considered possibility.
Your observations and analyses of Putin are interesting. On much of it, I agree.
Firstly, we may be in agreement in that between the MSM reporting and Gummint dissemination, neither can be trusted. And since there has been a concerted effort to demonize Putin (same of Trump), any and all "reports" of either are not trusted for accuracy.
Putin is for Putin; Yes, he appears to demonstrate some sincere concern for humanity in general and appears to have a morality-based conscience. He is no angel, but in the context of those in power at this time, he is amazingly reserved.
He prioritizes the interests of Mother Russia -- that is to be expected, a big plus. At least he is interested in supporting the concept of "Sovereignty"; AND rejecting any international coercion to join and betray his own people by making them subjects at the whims of a Globalist Cabal.
That aside, and back to topic.....
The penalty of discredit for an observatory would be severe. These are scientists, and about the worst crime scientists could be convicted of is purposely releasing false information about their science to the public as though it was real information. I am serious is saying that is a real deterrent. For the degree of conspiracy you propose, it would require extreme amount of trust for one compromised scientist to trust hundreds or thousands of other scientists to not debunk them.
This is not to say scientists cannot be biased in their research which can skew their results. They certainly can be. But I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about outright fraud.
"Global Warming" has already been proven to be a fraud as countless scientists were compensated/bribed/coerced by un-named financiers to skew their opinion. (Some have even been knocked off.)
How close were we from being fooled and the Elites from winning this Fake Science Issue? Algore was THAT close from establishing an alternative currency and tax based on "Carbon Footprints" and a "Carbon Credit System".
These kinds of conspiracies and the seemingly impossible numbers of participants who must maintain silence -- haven't these large ensembles and charades been orchestrated for decades? With control of the Messenger (the MSM) there is complete control of the Message. (See JFK/Warren Report, 911, 0bama Past, several false flag shooting, Benghazi, Arab Spring, Trump Coup, etc.)
Which while obstructing no starlight, also obstructs no sun light. The moon surface would have been brighter than death valley at noon, so the relative difference in light strength would have been, more or less, the same.
Camera lens. Directional photography.
We might be able be able to give a mulligan on the FIRST alleged Apollo Landing, but NOT the others. NASA sends human to the moon but lack proper cameras and lens and a plan to photograph the Earth? (They could have even taken a few clear, detailed shots from the cabin. Instead we got some fuzzy fake ones.)
No, as "earth rise" was photoed from the lunar orbiter as earth appeared over a moon horizon. As the moon is tidally locked to earth, moon inhabitants would never see the earth rise as we on earth see the moon rise.
Thanks for the clarification. And technical knowledge. So...No "Earth Rise" or "Moon Set"? Bummer. I'd have never figured out that one.
Deckard posted (up-thread) scientists' explanation on the dangers of a space ship negotiating the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
