2001: A Space Odyssey

s1ocki not bothered by aspect ratio futzing?

what's the futzing? it's UN-futzed no?

the versions on the new dvds are the theatrical, not tv

I haven't followed it, I just know there was clusternerding over it.

it's tricky cos el kubo *preffered* tv framing or something. but telecine is not a 'right or wrong' thing and there's always someone who thinks they've been cheated.

no, he preferred the tv framing for home video (so i hear) / tv. this is all before 16:9 tvs became the thing.

exactly.

he just hated the black bars. so there you go

The AR debate is mainly perpetuated by nerds who insist on calling square compositions Kubrickian because, apparently, TV was their first exposure to most of his films.

This is the box that has the daughter's making-of-The Shining doc, yes?

The previous DVD version of The Shining had it too. You're asking because you want to see Shelly Duvall get knocked around more than she does in the main feature, right?

no, but I do want to see Kub badger her.

And then her waxing generous some months later from behind the safety of a restraining order.

scatman so intense in that doc

shelly duval is in a mental hospital or something now, correct? didn't I hear that somewhere (probably here on ILX, bastion and font of all truth)?

you're thinking of Margot Kidder

specifically this incident:

Kidder has bipolar disorder, which led to a widely publicized manic episode in 1996. Kidder was found by Los Angeles police in a distressed state. She was placed in psychiatric care.

thinking of Margot Kidder is quite an achievement these days.

Imagine a 2001 DVD with Martin Balsam's HAL track, ah. Did you know Douglas Rain also does the robot butler (and computer) voices in Sleeper? "The police are here. Will you be wanting lunch?"

you've been thinking about Sleeper a lot lately, apparently

just bcz my Orgasmatron is broken?

There was this exchange on the Shelley Duvall poll. I think there was some more information somewhere, I don't know. I can't find anything else to corroborate what's being said here:
I saw her being interviewed on something recently and she's put on a LOT on weight. She's like double the size now.

so, up to 100 pounds then?

-- akm, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:45 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, I realised that as soon as I typed it. She's probably tripled or quadrupled in size. I thought it was Shelly Winters.

-- nate woolls, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:56 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

shelly duvall is in a mental home?!

:(

-- pisces, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:57 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

she's definitely not in a mental home, she's still making movies!

I'm glad! She's great, imo.

yeah I wish I saw more of her - the last thing I can remember really enjoying her in was Roxanne (also probably Steve Martin's last decent movie)

iMdb doesn't have her making a film since '02

from what i remember, the tv versions didn't chop off the image, they actually removed masking from the top and bottom of the image, revealing more?

yes.

ie, visual info that was not seen in theaters

A bunch of links to contemporaneous interviews/reviews on its 40th anniversary:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/2008/04/101_links_as_20.html

SK in Playboy:
"The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I'm glad is finally changing."

saw this on ch5 on sunday. infuriatingly slow but WOW at the visuals. such an amazing looking film. that was the only reason i kept watching. and i know some ppl seem to think the bit towards the end where its like some massive interplanetary light show is a bit crap, but i thought it was amazing and really beautiful.

love it, but could do without the annoying start of nothingness

the opening is the BEST

it is totally majestic

^

the however many minutes of blackness and then the planetary alignment is like the definition of @_@

i saw moon tonight and i kept thinking how pathetic the long shots of planets looked (not talking about the ropey/cute exteriors in moon here) compared to 2001.

I always go whenever the Arclight Cinedome shows this in the Cinerama Super Panavision 70 format. I've never gotten tired of it ever.

a longtime fan of this movie, and kubrick in general, but just bought the 2007 reissue (as well as clockwork orange). Slowness of this movie is like giant gears of a celestial rollercoaster unlocking, eeking out steam that eventually blows the railing away, and by the time the coaster actually gets going, there's no track in the world that could contain it. Anticipation during this movie, to me = of the gods. The payoff of this movie, to me = of the gods. The pacing of this movie, especially alongside its music, is one of the best technical lessons I've ever gotten on how to produce a piece of art. mangs, it's like the gift that keeps on giving!!

The first part of this movie is all about style and it succeeds wonderfully. The middle part is about the story and it succeeds, too. The ending is all about style and, for me, it failed.

The ending failed for me way back when I first saw it on a big screen in the theater, back when the film was new. I was even stoned, which others at the time assured me was the proper way to see the film. Still, it failed. A shame, too. It deserved a successful ending.

how the fuck else would you end this movie?

Not for me to say. I'm just the paying public.

a longtime fan of this movie, and kubrick in general, but just bought the 2007 reissue (as well as clockwork orange). Slowness of this movie is like giant gears of a celestial rollercoaster unlocking, eeking out steam that eventually blows the railing away, and by the time the coaster actually gets going, there's no track in the world that could contain it. Anticipation during this movie, to me = of the gods. The payoff of this movie, to me = of the gods. The pacing of this movie, especially alongside its music, is one of the best technical lessons I've ever gotten on how to produce a piece of art. mangs, it's like the gift that keeps on giving!!

― Dominique, Monday, July 20, 2009 9:23 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well said

how the fuck else would you end this movie?

Why, with a Blue Thunder-era Roy Scheider yukking it up with some Cosmonauts as they watch Jupiter play dominoes with itself, that's how!

they should have ended it with dr floyd "going in" and saving dave

should have ended in a party scene, with all the main characters dancing

http://www.justdjj.com/Media/dancing_baby.gif

hahah

HAL djing

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't play that"

"a fifth of beethoven"