Proposed Star Gate sequence
RHJones
Dave C
"RHJones" <ovm0...@newstar.com> wrote in message
news:WnZq8.3559$ov3.3...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>Check out http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey5.html Very nice mpegs
Kubrick was working on and unfortanetly never >fininshed.
>rj
NOT according to the linked pages!
See http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey3.html
and
where the text makes it VERY clear.
Dave C
Chris Cathcart
> Kubrick was working on and unfortanetly never fininshed.
I don't have nearly a fast enough modem to make it worth the time
downloading, but just the still-shots alone indicate that the "Star
Gate" sequence is that one aspect of the film that could have been
done better using current technology. That's the only part of the
film I've found disappointing . . . relatively speaking. Current
technology or no, it has Ligeti's "Atmospheres" playing, and that's
enough to make it worth coming back to time and again.
Actually, my hunch is that it was time and budget constraints that
kept them from doing a first-rate Star-Gate effect. They got
everything else down to perfection for all practical purposes, with
all the primitive technical effects available then....
But yeah, the movie falls just short of total perfection without a
kick-ass Star-Gate sequence. :-) (Chalk it up to technology, not to
filmmaking technique. [i.e., Kubrick is God])
Don Davis
Too bad Stanley will never get a crack at this. I am well aware of the
concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it is
no longer unthinkable.
I have to admit that this would be a tempting thing to try. Here is
what I would do if an HDTV or better res digital version of '2001' was
scanned from the best surviving material and made available. (ideally the
edited sections would be available as well)
1, Nearly all the orbital Earth, Lunar landscape backgrounds, and
planetary images would be redone, although the compositions and other
elements of each shot would be carefully preserved. Much of the scenery
model work would be replaced by computer graphics carefully fashioned to
not look out of place in the scene. A few flat 'cutout ' spacecraft
shots such as the round 'Aries' lander passing by the Earth lit Lunar
horizon could be completely remodeled in CGI, however perhaps using the
little 'views into the windows' from the original if the quality of the
scanned material permits.
There may be some 'steadying' of the original film images done to
eliminate camera induced jitter in some 'updated' scenes but otherwise
care would be taken not to tamper with the vision of the original. One
would notice, for instance, Jupiter and the moons with actual surface
features but their placement in the frame or size would not be touched.
2. The most problematical task is the 'star gate' sequence 'refreshing'.
I say 'refreshing' rather than revision because of the subject matter.
This sequence is the most dated in the film, with chemical reactions and
chemically and optically treated aircraft shots of deserts not having the
impact now as they did 34 years ago. I would leave in the slit scan shots
and the eye close-ups, but build another 'bridge' between Jupiter and
Beyond the Infinite. It would be tempting to try out things abandoned in
development like variations of the 'city of light' ideas and things
written of in '2001' and 'the lost world s of 2001'. Above all the 'feel'
of the original being seen in the late 1960's would be the guide to
redoing this vital section of this great film. The new sequences would be
fit within the existing editing and music and simply retell that part of
the story in more modern visual terms. Somehow visual artistry and not
the software effects must dominate, otherwise the 'look' could become
dated even faster than the film visuals here did.
Some day several people may end up doing this privately and it would be
interesting to see them in a future film festival! I know I would do my
best to make it into something I imagine Stanley would approve of.
Don Davis
Mike Jackson
at cath...@liquidinformation.com 04/04/2002 5:17 PM went on about :
> "RHJones" <ovm0...@newstar.com> wrote in message
> news:<WnZq8.3559$ov3.3...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>> Check out http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey5.html Very nice mpegs
>> Kubrick was working on and unfortanetly never fininshed.
>
> I don't have nearly a fast enough modem to make it worth the time
> downloading, but just the still-shots alone indicate that the "Star
> Gate" sequence is that one aspect of the film that could have been
> done better using current technology. That's the only part of the
> film I've found disappointing . . . relatively speaking. Current
> technology or no, it has Ligeti's "Atmospheres" playing, and that's
> enough to make it worth coming back to time and again.
>
> Actually, my hunch is that it was time and budget constraints that
> kept them from doing a first-rate Star-Gate effect. They got
> everything else down to perfection for all practical purposes, with
> all the primitive technical effects available then....
Those movie files on Dennis' site AREN'T something of Kubrick's, but rather
a fan's attempts to replicate and improve on what was done with slit scan by
Trumbull way back when just to see what he could do.
When one looks at the efforts of modern computer graphics to create some
sort of similar effect, such as the wormholes in Star Trek or the similar
transit in the movie "Contact" it is certainly far beyond what could have
been dreamed of back in the late 60's. Still, how many of those made you
say "Wow!" rather than yawn? I can't think of any...
> But yeah, the movie falls just short of total perfection without a
> kick-ass Star-Gate sequence. :-) (Chalk it up to technology, not to
> filmmaking technique. [i.e., Kubrick is God])
Now from a purely technical point of view one could call the original Star
Gate sequence "primitive", but the real difference in what is done now
versus then is that the story and all other aspects of "2001" are so far
beyond what has been done since that the emotional and visceral impact of
that simple camera trick that created the Star Gate is still light-years
ahead of all other efforts like it.
It isn't the visual look of the original slit scan Star Gate that is really
the mind-blowing part of the "Ultimate Trip". It's how we got there in the
film and where we go afterward.
No matter how infinite the amount of cubicles of monkeys working on infinite
numbers of CGI workstations you let loose, that's the thing no film maker
may ever improve on.
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental/
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
Boaz
I took a look at a few of the shots. It's too obviously CGI and would
not match even if they were to be cut in with the existing footage.
But this wasn't done as any sort of "restoration" or "revision," a la
Spielberg with "ET" or Lucas with "Star Wars." This is just someone
who had the notion and software to embellish on his own "new and
improved" Stargate scene.
Can't people leave well enough alone? So what if some of the shots
"date" the film? What's next, CGI work on "Citizen Kane?" This kind of
reminds me of many years ago when a college friend said he and another
person were going to write lyrics to the main title music for "On Her
Majesty's Secret Service," because it was the only James Bond film to
not have a song playing over its main titles, just the music itself.
Of course, my friend never made good on his goal, but that's beside
the point. It's one thing to go back and restore footage and other
material that already existed in a film ("Lawrence of Arabia,"
"Spartacus"), but it's another altogether to try to add something that
never was planned or originally existed from that work at all.
Boaz, the Purist
Boaz
> Too bad Stanley will never get a crack at this. I am well aware of the
> concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
> film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it is
> no longer unthinkable.
You mean in this era of people not respecting the artist's original
work for what it is. This sort of thing almost makes me want to take
the side of the studios and corporations in holding on to the
copyrights in order to protect such films from this sort of thing.
Almost.
> I have to admit that this would be a tempting thing to try. Here is
> what I would do if an HDTV or better res digital version of '2001' was
> scanned from the best surviving material and made available. (ideally the
> edited sections would be available as well)
Why not scan from a print or interpositive, as long as you are
proposing some artistic grave-robbing here?
>
> 1, Nearly all the orbital Earth, Lunar landscape backgrounds, and
> planetary images would be redone, although the compositions and other
> elements of each shot would be carefully preserved. Much of the scenery
> model work would be replaced by computer graphics carefully fashioned to
> not look out of place in the scene. A few flat 'cutout ' spacecraft
> shots such as the round 'Aries' lander passing by the Earth lit Lunar
> horizon could be completely remodeled in CGI, however perhaps using the
> little 'views into the windows' from the original if the quality of the
> scanned material permits.
Why? Why? Why? The original footage looks perfect the way it is.
> There may be some 'steadying' of the original film images done to
> eliminate camera induced jitter in some 'updated' scenes but otherwise
> care would be taken not to tamper with the vision of the original.
The best thing would be to NOT tamper with it at all!
> One
> would notice, for instance, Jupiter and the moons with actual surface
> features but their placement in the frame or size would not be touched.
> 2. The most problematical task is the 'star gate' sequence 'refreshing'.
> I say 'refreshing' rather than revision because of the subject matter.
> This sequence is the most dated in the film, with chemical reactions and
> chemically and optically treated aircraft shots of deserts not having the
> impact now as they did 34 years ago. I would leave in the slit scan shots
> and the eye close-ups, but build another 'bridge' between Jupiter and
> Beyond the Infinite. It would be tempting to try out things abandoned in
> development like variations of the 'city of light' ideas and things
> written of in '2001' and 'the lost world s of 2001'. Above all the 'feel'
> of the original being seen in the late 1960's would be the guide to
> redoing this vital section of this great film. The new sequences would be
> fit within the existing editing and music and simply retell that part of
> the story in more modern visual terms. Somehow visual artistry and not
> the software effects must dominate, otherwise the 'look' could become
> dated even faster than the film visuals here did.
And then what happens when the new technology "outdates" your proposed
ideas thirty-four years from now? Does this wretched process start all
over again?
> Some day several people may end up doing this privately and it would be
> interesting to see them in a future film festival! I know I would do my
> best to make it into something I imagine Stanley would approve of.
>
> Don Davis
I think what Stanley would approve of is if you and some of the other
geeks wasting their time and software to do this would just leave it
the fuck alone.
Why don't we just add a nose ring to the Mona Lisa? That way she'll
look hip and up-to-date so the young people will now go to the
museums. Or maybe re-do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and put a
nipple ring on Adam, or maybe a series of tattoos on Eve as she's
being tempted by the Serpent, who himself may sport a Mohawk. Maybe
Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden by an angel wielding a
lightsabre (gotta get those Star Wars fans in there!).
How about taking some Beatle recordings and redubbing your own voice
over the songs, so you can be heard on the CD with John, Paul, George
and Ringo? Hey, you can now be the fifth Beatle! (Or can you just let
it be?)
As it is, I prefer to see "2001" the way it is, expecially when the
effects were quite revolutionary and advanced at the time.
Maybe the energy to perform this proposed unconscionable act on
Kubrick's work would be better spend creating original works that can
be admired and appreciated for their own special beauty, now and
thirty-four years (or more) from now.
Boaz (see my other post on the subject)
Peter Tonguette
>> Too bad Stanley will never get a crack at this. I am well aware of the
>> concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
>> film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it
>is
>> no longer unthinkable.
You and Steven Spielberg would really get along...
Mike Jackson
boa...@lycos.com 04/04/2002 9:23 PM went on about :
> "Dave C" <d.corcor...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:<j2_q8.6912$Ll2.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
>> "RHJones" <ovm0...@newstar.com> wrote in message
>> news:WnZq8.3559$ov3.3...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>>> Check out http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey5.html Very nice mpegs
>>> Kubrick was working on and unfortanetly never >fininshed.
>>>
>>> rj
>>
>> NOT according to the linked pages!
>>
>> See http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey3.html
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://second-foundation.org/
>>
>> where the text makes it VERY clear.
>>
>> Dave C
>
> I took a look at a few of the shots. It's too obviously CGI and would
> not match even if they were to be cut in with the existing footage.
It wasn't intended to be. I think the fellow was inspired to do it to see if
it was a technique that could be done with computer animation. It's common
amongst animators to try to emulate something they've seen in a movie as fun
learning project.
> But this wasn't done as any sort of "restoration" or "revision," a la
> Spielberg with "ET" or Lucas with "Star Wars." This is just someone who had
> the notion and software to embellish on his own "new and improved" Stargate
> scene.
>
> Can't people leave well enough alone? So what if some of the shots "date" the
> film? What's next, CGI work on "Citizen Kane?"
I think that if you took the time to read the text you would see that the
fellow wasn't trying to revise the film, just see if he had the talent to
figure out how to achieve a similar effect to further his animation
knowledge. There are other applications for the techniques he used to do the
animation that will be applicable in another project most certainly. To me
it's analogous to painting a copy of a master painters painting in a museum
as a learning exercise.
With higher end software and a whole lotta coffee and rendering time he
probably could duplicate the effect achieved in the film, but that's not the
point he was trying to make I think.
> This kind of reminds me of many years ago when a college friend said he and
> another person were going to write lyrics to the main title music for "On Her
> Majesty's Secret Service," because it was the only James Bond film to not have
> a song playing over its main titles, just the music itself. Of course, my
> friend never made good on his goal, but that's beside the point.
Would anyone seriously have considered to put his lyrics in there even if he
had succeeded? Sounds more like your friend playing "What's Up Tiger Lily?"
than something as serious as Ted Turner colorizing films which was a real
danger to the form of great films...
> It's one thing to go back and restore footage and other material that already
> existed in a film ("Lawrence of Arabia," "Spartacus"), but it's another
> altogether to try to add something that never was planned or originally
> existed from that work at all.
>
> Boaz, the Purist
That's true enough, but I think there's a big difference here.
May I suggest a stress pill?
Mike Jackson
ptong...@aol.com 04/04/2002 9:57 PM went on about :
Hahaha
Old Steverino may have finally learned his lesson. I saw on TV tonight that
his theatrical re-release of "E.T." has turned into a huge financial
disaster. I must really be unplugged cause I didn't even know it had been
out until I saw the news story...
I would have gone to the theater with my "ET GO HOME!" sign!
kdc
would notice. I suggest you re-cast the Dawn Of Man sequence with cgi
monkeys, like that big-eyed thing in "Lost In Space". When they touch the
monolith, add a gratuitous explosion shockwave. And all the apes should
speak, too, with Tim Roth's voice. When the one smashes the bones, add in a
big ol'chunka bone shrapnel that flies at-camera <ka-woosh!> When the bone
is thrown in the air, freeze-frame on it ala Matrix and fly all around it a
few times before cutting to the satellite. Add a dozen nuclear missiles
launching from the satellite (their passage near-camera causes
oh-so-realistic camera-shaking), and there should be about a hundred more
shuttlecraft docking with the space-station (and hundreds more launching,
riding pillars of blowtorch flame exhaust). Replace all the outdated PanAm
logos with Virgin/Spacelines. "The Blue Danube" is out, "Start The
Commotion" is in. Get rid of Floyd's floating pen. A PEN in the new
millennium? Should be a PalmPilot. And the grip-shoe stewardess needs to
have a rocket-pack and ZOOM through the cabin. The tv-screen in the
seat-back in front of Floyd is a good place to add a gag: he's fallen asleep
while watching "Space: 1999 - The Motion Picture" and it stars Nicolas Cage.
Get it? He fells asleep cuz it was boring, ha-ha. On board the space
station, add some robotic customs agents mechanically searching some space-y
looking luggage. The robots could get mad and one could bop the other on
the head, hey it worked for George, right? I bet a kid would love to
skateboard on that curved floor of the station, let's add some gnarly rad
street shredders dude, just digitize some Lost Boys footage from Hook,
that's the audience we're shooting for. Lots more dust and debris needs to
be added when ships land on the moon. Fer chrissake get some freakin'
sound-effects already! And when the Moon monolith is touched, lightning
should shoot out and pierce all the astronauts through their eyes and mouths
; one's head explodes, another's head withers like an apple rotting in fast
speed, and a third just melts like wax. Meanwhile, back on earth Liv Tyler
takes a steamy shower. Digitally re-cast Dave and Poole with current teen
flick stars. Jack Black as Poole, Reese Witherspoon as Dave. HAL needs to
be a holographic character, like the Robin Williams einstein in AI., only he
has a Hannibal Lechter voice --- today's audiences don't find that old
monotone very threatening, you see. Product place Intergalactic House Of
Pancake logos embossed into the space-paste they eat for breakfast. And who
the hell would jog around a centrifuge without music blaring? Clearly this
is a spot for some kind of Nike Aerospace Jordan product plug, see to it
while you're in there mucking about. Don't limit the new Jupiter effects to
just being more-accurate-than-before; let's have a comet <SLAM!> into
Jupiter. No wait, a whole chain of comets. Let's put all of HAL's murders
on-screen, and he should use a variety of weapons. He just doesn't seem
ominous enough for today's audience, but this way they'll really really
enjoy the movie and watch it over and over. I've always wondered why HAL
didn't have better security. There should be a gauntlet of laser-beam death
that Dave/Witherspoon has to make it through. She'll make it through,
though, thanks to her Crouching Tiger leaping and spinning skills! When she
goes through the Star Gate, don't have her end up in some weird room with a
white grid-floor and sparse furniture --- she should end up on a desert
planet fighting alongside Kurt Russell to free the slaves from evil
glowy-eyed Jaye Davidson. The Star Child has to speak like Baby Bob. After
the end credits, have Floyd come out of the shower in a bathrobe and go
"you're still here? Go home already!" You know, they say Stanny the K like
to keep fiddling with his films --- I'm sure he would've gotten around to
all these changes eventually. Don't worry if the final result sucks. Just
re-do it every ten years. That's the best way to get new viewers.
Dave C
"kdc" <meak...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PQbr8.1072$8%2.329...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Jan de Bont's your man for this, after the job he did of remaking Robert
Wise's "The Haunting"!
(the ONLY bit in the remake I liked was when Owen Wilson got decapitated -
though it would have been better, had it happened to the director!)
Anyhoo, Brian de Palma's alreddy redun 2001:a spase oddity, expset he made
it better, 'coz they got to Mars, an saw the alien, an got a CGI history of
Earth, an had a BIG explosion at the end :-)
Dave C
Nivek Edrof
> concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
> film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it is
> no longer unthinkable.
> I have to admit that this would be a tempting thing to try. Here is
> what I would do if an HDTV or better res digital version of '2001' was
> scanned from the best surviving material and made available. (ideally the
> edited sections would be available as well)
>
To me 2001: ASO is a very credible view of space itself. More importantly
though its a view of space (and "the future") from the viewpoint of how it
was perceived in the late 60s -by intelligent people anyway.
The stargate sequence itself might seem outdated now, but who amongst us
knows what a "stargate sequence" should look like anyway? Whose to say its
_wrong_?
If only for its whole retro-futuristic aesthetic qualities it should *never*
be changed.
But of course there are many more reasons not to change it also (already
stated by others here).
-Kevin.
Wordsmith
*2001* is fine as is. No alterations needed...or, for that matter, wanted.
Statusquosmith :)
kdc
starfields as visible on my tv as they appear when seeing it at the Cinerama
Dome. No one needs to alter the movie, I just need super-dupe hi-def
equipment.
I'm talking specifically 'bout the p.o.v. out the spacestation landing bay
as the shuttle approaches --- on my tv, the shuttle is a mere smudge of
detail against black sky. On the big screen that black sky is a marvelously
spinning, dizzying starfield It really drove home the feel that the ship,
the station, and the whole of the universe stretching to the distant stars
were all connected in the graceful Danube waltz. On my tv, it's a dance
between ship and station only.
Boaz
> in article ea73354.02040...@posting.google.com, Boaz at
> boa...@lycos.com 04/04/2002 9:23 PM went on about :
>
> > "Dave C" <d.corcor...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:<j2_q8.6912$Ll2.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> >> "RHJones" <ovm0...@newstar.com> wrote in message
> >> news:WnZq8.3559$ov3.3...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> >>> Check out http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey5.html Very nice mpegs
> >>> Kubrick was working on and unfortanetly never >fininshed.
> >>>
> >>> rj
> >>
> >> NOT according to the linked pages!
> >>
> >> See http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/carey3.html
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> http://second-foundation.org/
> >>
> >> where the text makes it VERY clear.
> >>
> >> Dave C
> >
> > I took a look at a few of the shots. It's too obviously CGI and would
> > not match even if they were to be cut in with the existing footage.
>
> It wasn't intended to be. I think the fellow was inspired to do it to see if
> it was a technique that could be done with computer animation. It's common
> amongst animators to try to emulate something they've seen in a movie as fun
> learning project.
Oh, yes, I forgot about your HAL screensaver project. On the other
hand, I can see what you did as some sort of practical application. I
don't see that here. Also, I'm not impressed with the end results.
> > But this wasn't done as any sort of "restoration" or "revision," a la
> > Spielberg with "ET" or Lucas with "Star Wars." This is just someone who had
> > the notion and software to embellish on his own "new and improved" Stargate
> > scene.
> >
> > Can't people leave well enough alone? So what if some of the shots "date" the
> > film? What's next, CGI work on "Citizen Kane?"
>
> I think that if you took the time to read the text you would see that the
> fellow wasn't trying to revise the film, just see if he had the talent to
> figure out how to achieve a similar effect to further his animation
> knowledge. There are other applications for the techniques he used to do the
> animation that will be applicable in another project most certainly. To me
> it's analogous to painting a copy of a master painters painting in a museum
> as a learning exercise.
Then why does he say "proposed" on his subject heading? And I did read
the text. And now that he's done that I hope he moves on to something
else to show his talents.
> With higher end software and a whole lotta coffee and rendering time he
> probably could duplicate the effect achieved in the film, but that's not the
> point he was trying to make I think.
Let's hope not, unlike that other person and his moronic proposal.
> > This kind of reminds me of many years ago when a college friend said he and
> > another person were going to write lyrics to the main title music for "On Her
> > Majesty's Secret Service," because it was the only James Bond film to not have
> > a song playing over its main titles, just the music itself. Of course, my
> > friend never made good on his goal, but that's beside the point.
>
> Would anyone seriously have considered to put his lyrics in there even if he
> had succeeded?
This guy was serious about it.
> Sounds more like your friend playing "What's Up Tiger Lily?"
He wasn't that smart.
> than something as serious as Ted Turner colorizing films which was a real
> danger to the form of great films...
No it wasn't. The great films can still be seen in their original
black and white. And colorizing is no longer done and hasn't been done
in ten years. I'm aware that a colorized movie will pop up now and
then on TV, but the best thing is to switch channels and not concern
yourself with those who will gladly watch a movie that way. If they
truly cared about films they wouldn't bother, and if they don't then
they aren't people to associate with.
> > It's one thing to go back and restore footage and other material that already
> > existed in a film ("Lawrence of Arabia," "Spartacus"), but it's another
> > altogether to try to add something that never was planned or originally
> > existed from that work at all.
> >
> > Boaz, the Purist
>
> That's true enough, but I think there's a big difference here.
> May I suggest a stress pill?
LOL! I'm not even going to dignify that one with an answer.
Boaz
Mike Jackson
Well, his results aren't really very close, but it looks like what he was
trying to do is more akin to the iTunes kaleidoscope sort of effect. The guy
who developed the programming to do the iTunes thing made a nice little mint
selling it to Apple Computers and if you want the iTunes version of a
StarGate-ish look, you can just get the iTunes mp3 player for free.
It would actually be pretty simple to replicate the StarGate sequence with
Elastic Reality where you would just create morphs between different color
fields and then mapped them with alpha channels onto two pieces of geometry
that duplicated the pitch and vanishing points as done with slitscan.
The irony is that the render time would probably be about equal to the
slitscan production unless one had access to one hell of a render farm.
>>> But this wasn't done as any sort of "restoration" or "revision," a la
>>> Spielberg with "ET" or Lucas with "Star Wars." This is just someone who had
>>> the notion and software to embellish on his own "new and improved" Stargate
>>> scene.
>>>
>>> Can't people leave well enough alone? So what if some of the shots "date"
>>> the
>>> film? What's next, CGI work on "Citizen Kane?"
>>
>> I think that if you took the time to read the text you would see that the
>> fellow wasn't trying to revise the film, just see if he had the talent to
>> figure out how to achieve a similar effect to further his animation
>> knowledge. There are other applications for the techniques he used to do the
>> animation that will be applicable in another project most certainly. To me
>> it's analogous to painting a copy of a master painters painting in a museum
>> as a learning exercise.
>
> Then why does he say "proposed" on his subject heading? And I did read
> the text. And now that he's done that I hope he moves on to something
> else to show his talents.
Well, he probably will. I used the HAL screensaver as a fun way to learn how
to use Flash myself. At least the end result of what I did is something that
a few people may enjoy.
>> With higher end software and a whole lotta coffee and rendering time he
>> probably could duplicate the effect achieved in the film, but that's not the
>> point he was trying to make I think.
>
> Let's hope not, unlike that other person and his moronic proposal.
Which other person are you referring to? I've lost something in this thread
apparently...
>>> This kind of reminds me of many years ago when a college friend said he and
>>> another person were going to write lyrics to the main title music for "On
>>> Her
>>> Majesty's Secret Service," because it was the only James Bond film to not
>>> have
>>> a song playing over its main titles, just the music itself. Of course, my
>>> friend never made good on his goal, but that's beside the point.
>>
>> Would anyone seriously have considered to put his lyrics in there even if he
>> had succeeded?
>
> This guy was serious about it.
Well, so are the guys wearing tinfoil on their heads and babbling about
having had an anal probe from aliens. Either sounds about as likely to
amount to something...
>> Sounds more like your friend playing "What's Up Tiger Lily?"
>
> He wasn't that smart.
There's always room for stuff like that, like Mystery science Theater 3000
or whatever it was called. I always wanted to see those guys take on "Star
Trek" myself, but if they ever did I'm unaware of it...
>> than something as serious as Ted Turner colorizing films which was a real
>> danger to the form of great films...
>
> No it wasn't. The great films can still be seen in their original
> black and white. And colorizing is no longer done and hasn't been done
> in ten years. I'm aware that a colorized movie will pop up now and
> then on TV, but the best thing is to switch channels and not concern
> yourself with those who will gladly watch a movie that way. If they
> truly cared about films they wouldn't bother, and if they don't then
> they aren't people to associate with.
It's well known that it was a disaster financially to colorize movies, but
then there's always someone wanting to do some damned thing because it's
there, like cloning for example.
At least in the case of the movies more people clamored for the original
forms is probably a big factor in defeating Turner's efforts.
>>> It's one thing to go back and restore footage and other material that
>>> already
>>> existed in a film ("Lawrence of Arabia," "Spartacus"), but it's another
>>> altogether to try to add something that never was planned or originally
>>> existed from that work at all.
>>>
>>> Boaz, the Purist
>>
>> That's true enough, but I think there's a big difference here.
>> May I suggest a stress pill?
>
> LOL! I'm not even going to dignify that one with an answer.
>
> Boaz
I know Dennis who has the site pretty well. I think he put the guy's
StarGate thing up because it was something remotely "2001" related and he
rather big-heartedly features a lot of stuff that isn't always the most
profession fan made stuff... I just think that you are getting yourself
worked up over relatively little.
No one's going to ever touch "2001's" negatives to update or improve upon
it.
strider
wrote:
>*2001* is fine as is. No alterations needed...or, for that matter, wanted.
>
>Statusquosmith :)
A sentiment shared by Kubrick. Many years after making 2001:ASO
(sometime between FMJ & EWS, IIRC) he said that it was his only film
of which he would not wish to change a single frame.
--
strider
Chris Cathcart
> would notice. I suggest you re-cast the Dawn Of Man sequence with cgi
> monkeys, like that big-eyed thing in "Lost In Space". When they touch the
> monolith, add a gratuitous explosion shockwave. And all the apes should
> speak, too, with Tim Roth's voice. When the one smashes the bones, add in a
> big ol'chunka bone shrapnel that flies at-camera <ka-woosh!> When the bone
> is thrown in the air, freeze-frame on it ala Matrix and fly all around it a
> few times before cutting to the satellite. Add a dozen nuclear missiles
> launching from the satellite (their passage near-camera causes
> oh-so-realistic camera-shaking), and there should be about a hundred more
> shuttlecraft docking with the
:-) Great stuff. And really, it's not that far down the slippery
slope from the way the Hollywood-minded directors go bastardizing
their films for re-release.
That said, the Star Gate *was* one aspect of the movie that could
clearly have benefitted from better technology . . . but it would have
been best to leave that decision to Stanley. Rest assured that he'd
have had enough class to avoid bastardizing the movie in the process.
Now that he's gone, the movie should be left ALONE. PERIOD. We
should only speculate on how nice it MIGHT have been improved, but
aside from that, we should all keep our grimy mitts OFF.
Chris Cathcart
> Don Davis <dondavi...@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:<3CACE70F...@thegrid.net>...
> > Too bad Stanley will never get a crack at this. I am well aware of the
> > concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
> > film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it is
> > no longer unthinkable.
>
> You mean in this era of people not respecting the artist's original
> work for what it is. This sort of thing almost makes me want to take
> the side of the studios and corporations in holding on to the
> copyrights in order to protect such films from this sort of thing.
> Almost.
No one but Stanley should be allowed to touch it. Now that he's gone,
no one should go and "fix" what they don't like. I'm among those who
think _2001_ is as close to perfection as filmmaking gets, but it's
only MY opinion about how things could be made better. But wouldn't
it stand to reason that Stanley himself may have thought similar
things along these lines and considered an enhanced Star Gate effect
when the better technology came along?
Yeah, the Star Gate is just visual effect; as someone already pointed
out, the surrounding context of the movie is what gives it its special
impact (unlike in, say, _Contact_, with its souped-up effects), but
that's not to say that the visual effect itself couldn't be enhanced.
C'mon, now. Look at the whole of the rest of the movie. It's as
well-done then as could be done with current technology . . . with the
exception of the Star Gate. If the movie were made from scratch now,
by SK himself of course, that's the ONLY thing that would be different
about the movie, don't you think? CGI effects or not, you'd get
nothing that is substantively better in its visual appearance than
anything else in the movie.
Just think how it would look if the movie were made today with SK
still at the helm, and figure what might be different. The words
"STAR GATE" are the only thing that come to mind.
That said . . .
> > 1, Nearly all the orbital Earth, Lunar landscape backgrounds, and
> > planetary images would be redone, although the compositions and other
> > elements of each shot would be carefully preserved. Much of the scenery
> > model work would be replaced by computer graphics carefully fashioned to
> > not look out of place in the scene. A few flat 'cutout ' spacecraft
> > shots such as the round 'Aries' lander passing by the Earth lit Lunar
> > horizon could be completely remodeled in CGI, however perhaps using the
> > little 'views into the windows' from the original if the quality of the
> > scanned material permits.
>
> Why? Why? Why? The original footage looks perfect the way it is.
I agree. The recommendation is just superfluous when th visual effect
was already accomplished. What, should they go do CGI makeovers just
for the sake of it? Some CGI fetish people have or something?
All that said, everyone here I think KNOWS that the Star Gate sequence
would have been more impressive with current technology. Nothing
about that implies that we should now go tampering with it once the
original artists has passed.
Jeez, why do folks here seem so defensive?
Chris Cathcart
> > But yeah, the movie falls just short of total perfection without a
> > kick-ass Star-Gate sequence. :-) (Chalk it up to technology, not to
> > filmmaking technique. [i.e., Kubrick is God])
>
> Now from a purely technical point of view one could call the original Star
> Gate sequence "primitive",
I said specifically from a technological standpoint. From a technical
standpoint -- by which I mean by the standards of filmmaking
technique, Kubrick did pretty much as well as could be expected GIVEN
the technology and tools available. No one's questioning that from an
artistic standpoint that it isn't masterfully done.
I mean, he HAD to be years ahead of his time to make it work, pretty
much throughout the entire movie. I'm amazed that it got made at the
time it did, when _Star Wars_ had barely caught up 10 years later.
That's just aside from the timeless nature of the story being told in
the film.
> but the real difference in what is done now
> versus then is that the story and all other aspects of "2001" are so far
> beyond what has been done since that the emotional and visceral impact of
> that simple camera trick that created the Star Gate is still light-years
> ahead of all other efforts like it.
>
> It isn't the visual look of the original slit scan Star Gate that is really
> the mind-blowing part of the "Ultimate Trip". It's how we got there in the
> film and where we go afterward.
>
> No matter how infinite the amount of cubicles of monkeys working on infinite
> numbers of CGI workstations you let loose, that's the thing no film maker
> may ever improve on.
Agreed. See also my other posts, not denying this point, but
mentioning that if the film were done by SK today, there's only one
aspect that would be done differently, and done with improvement, and
that's the Star Gate.
JeffD
What you said.
Jeff D.
JeffD
>
> "Dave C" <d.corcor...@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<j2_q8.6912$Ll2.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > "RHJones" <ovm0...@newstar.com> wrote in message
> > news:WnZq8.3559$ov3.3...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com..
What you said..again (and it's funny how "purist" at some point become
somewhat of a semi-perjorative term).
What I think has alot to do with the whole "update" and revisionist
mentality, however (aside from the money/marketing aspect) is a certain
kind of thinking which says that "newer" is always ipso facto "better"
--not only generally, but especially as it relates to technology, and
it's a kind of mindset/belief that isn't confined to "technoids" or
"Digihead" type people. In fact it seems to be a pervasive, mostly
unconscious strain of thought among the general public; this idea
that (almost) anything of/in the present is "superior" (if not vastly)
to whatever came before it or was displaced by it - simply by virtue
of it's "present-ness"/newness, and the new(er) technology that is
responsible for it, whatever "it" may be. Unfortunately, it is a
false assumption probably more often than not. Combine this with a sort
of smug disinterest/dismissal of history is general (almost anything
more than a few years old), of anything that came *before* -- any "old",
traditional item/means/process, etc. (often described as "primitive",
"low tech", "quaint", "unsophisticated", etc.) and it just seems to show
sort of a mindless disrespect/ignorance for and about anything that is
OF ITS TIME (a film, in this case) and that THIS time - and, therefore,
things OF this time, are automatically "superior" in most or all ways
-- simply because (supposedly) Technology (with a capital "T") has
become that much more "advanced" -- and the idea (blind faith/belief)
that that advancement, *in and of itself*, yields "superior" things and
results, etc. to whatever had the audacity to come before it. This
type of thinking certainly isn't new, but it seems that a certain
haughty arrogance has been added to it since the "digital revolution",
especially amongst techno-religionists (George Lucus is a good example,
IMO, in is one-man crusade to replace film in our lifetime).
As far as the effects in "2001"; I still find them superb. Kubrick's
beautifully done, meticulous, finely-crafted stop-motion animations
are, to me, MUCH more convincing than any CGI film effects I've seen
(in fact, I've yet to see any that don't look like just what they are).
The fact that a couple/few short sequences of some animated "cutouts" in
the film don't look quite as good as they did to me in 1968 is meaning-
less and less than unimportant. Also, IMO, if the Stargate sequence
looks "dated" (which it's not, to my eyes & ears), it's more likely
because of the countless "ripoffs" and uses of the effect through the
years -- starting with ABC "Tuesday Night At the Movies" intro/logo
sometime in the early '70s -- than it is the "primitive" technology of
the slit-scan device. But what do I know? Maybe we should just
"update" EVERYTHING, like you said, Boaz -- just to cater to "modern",
more "sophisticated" (ahem) "sensibilities" and tastes. No reason not
to update those old family photos either (after all, they were shot on
that old film stuff). Just scan'em into the computer (colorize the
black & white ones first though), replace the clothes on the picture of
your 12-year-old self with some modern, baggy, 4-sizes-too-big pants &
shirt. Then digitally remove that old "quaint" split-level house you're
standing in front of in the shot with a more appropriately modern,
bank-like, columned monstrosity (not forgetting also to digitally shrink
the size of the property to just slightly larger than the footprint of
the house). While you're at it - get rid of your neighbor's beautifully
styled '67 Lincoln Continental that's parked to the left of where you're
standing. It's old and outdated. Replace it with the bulbous, homog-
enized 2002 version -- or, better yet, paste a new Lincoln Navigator in
its place (so much more sensible and sophisticated than that '67
gaz-guzzler your friend's dad had). Lastly, your mother in the front
yard, in the background. That old-fashioned 8mm movie camera she's
using to film you and your dad as he was taking this photo of you?
That's gotta' go. People haven't used those in years. It's too quaint.
Digitally remove it from your mother's hands and replace with a new
Mini DV camcorder. There! Now save this new, more advanced, updated
version of that old photo to your HD and then print it out (highest
res possible), then make additional copies to give to the younger, more
sophisticated members of your family, and other newer relatives. They
will appreciate this updated version much more than the original, since
it's contents are now more "in tune" with their modern "sensibilities".
Revolutionary!!
(Boy, I really can get carried away.) ;)
Best,
Jeff D.
camcorder
JeffD
>
> "kdc" <meak...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<PQbr8.1072$8%2.329...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Your proposals are intriguing, but what would be the point? Hardly anyone
> > would notice. I suggest you re-cast the Dawn Of Man sequence with cgi
> > monkeys, like that big-eyed thing in "Lost In Space". When they touch the
> > monolith, add a gratuitous explosion shockwave. And all the apes should
> > speak, too, with Tim Roth's voice. When the one smashes the bones, add in a
> > big ol'chunka bone shrapnel that flies at-camera <ka-woosh!> When the bone
> > is thrown in the air, freeze-frame on it ala Matrix and fly all around it a
> > few times before cutting to the satellite. Add a dozen nuclear missiles
> > launching from the satellite (their passage near-camera causes
> > oh-so-realistic camera-shaking), and there should be about a hundred more
> > shuttlecraft docking with the
> [etc. etc. etc.]
>
> :-) Great stuff. And really, it's not that far down the slippery
> slope from the way the Hollywood-minded directors go bastardizing
> their films for re-release.
>
> That said, the Star Gate *was* one aspect of the movie that could
> clearly have benefitted from better technology . . . but it would have
> been best to leave that decision to Stanley. Rest assured that he'd
> have had enough class to avoid bastardizing the movie in the process.
Rest assured that he would've had the artistic integrity not to consider
"updating" it, regardless of "better technology". Period.
> Now that he's gone, the movie should be left ALONE. PERIOD. We
> should only speculate on how nice it MIGHT have been improved, but
> aside from that, we should all keep our grimy mitts OFF.
Never saw any reason to speculate myself. It was made as it was made;
it exists as it exists. Fine as it was made, fine as it exists.
Cutting out some footage a few days after release is one thing;
fucking around with it years or decades later is quite something else.
I don't believe this is something Kubrick would have even considered.
It is a part of art/movie history. As is. In all its magnificent form.
Best,
Jeff D.
Boaz
It's also more than that, which is why I have such strong feelings on
this issue.
There seems to be this cavalier attitude among people, such as the
original poster and even people in the film industry itself, who see
nothing wrong with altering another person's work in order to make it
"up to date." But if we went around altering every work of art,
whether it be a film or a painting or a piece of music--perhaps not
leaving any evidence of the existence of the original version--we risk
eradicating some very important pieces to our cultural history, and
reflections of the times in which they were created. By not seeing,
say, a Michaelangelo work in its original form we cannot appreciate
the period in which this work was done, not the times, the people, the
mindset, the philosophy, nothing, and it would be much harder for us
to understand Italy, the Church and even Europe itself during the
Renaissance. Seeing "2001" in the form in which Kubrick created it is
not only seeing a great work of cinema but it is also seeing an
example of the times in which the film was made; not only the
technology available then to create this work, but its view of man's
pursuit of knowledge through space exploration, the socio-political
climate, its view of history and pre-history, the barriers that were
slowly being broken down during this heady period of change in both
American and world cinema and understanding better the willingness and
openness on the part of audiences to accept this cinematic vision. To
add CGI of any sort would be not only be intruding on a great film but
it would then also deprive young viewers seeing this film for the
first time the vision that Kubrick had actually intended when creating
it. Many younger audiences are often called "sophisticated" in being
able to spot the more crude effects in older films with special
effects, but they are also perhaps missing the point in understanding
the technical limitations of the time when such films as "2001" was
created. "Forbidden Planet" was made before my time, and the special
effects were sophisticated for its time, but they do look dated
compared to "2001." However, I would never dream of doing a remake or
any CGI work to "improve" the film. I can appreciate it for what it
is, and it helps me understand the times in which it was made, taking
into account the socio-political climate that existed then. It's as if
history--or at least knowing anything about the time in which the
original film was made--means nothing to them.
And I find it interesting that when people talk about "improving" a
film they only talk about the special effects. Doesn't the script
count for anything anymore? Certainly if one wanted to make any kinds
of improvements on a film as, say, "Forbidden Planet," one of the
first places one could (and should) start is with the script. But the
corniness and hokiness of the script (in places) are just as much
reflective of the times in which the film was made as the special
effects, the costumes, the production design and even the "score" to
the film.
On the other hand, I am against any kind of remake in order to make
the film "reflect" the sensibilities of the times. I think the
"remakes" of "Planet of the Apes" and "The Time Machine" speak for
themselves about the "sensibilities" of the times in which they were
made.
Boaz
Boaz
> I know Dennis who has the site pretty well. I think he put the guy's
> StarGate thing up because it was something remotely "2001" related and he
> rather big-heartedly features a lot of stuff that isn't always the most
> profession fan made stuff... I just think that you are getting yourself
> worked up over relatively little.
What got me "worked up" wasn't Dennis' site so much as the other
thread that has this "proposal" in re-doing all of the effects in
"2001." The subject heading is almost the same. Check it out. I saw it
before I saw Dennis's site.
>
> No one's going to ever touch "2001's" negatives to update or improve upon
> it.
Amen to that.
Boaz
Mike Jackson
> cath...@liquidinformation.com (Chris Cathcart) wrote in message
> news:<b030b322.02040...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Why? Why? Why? The original footage looks perfect the way it is.
>>
>> I agree. The recommendation is just superfluous when th visual effect
>> was already accomplished. What, should they go do CGI makeovers just
>> for the sake of it? Some CGI fetish people have or something?
>>
>> All that said, everyone here I think KNOWS that the Star Gate sequence
>> would have been more impressive with current technology. Nothing
>> about that implies that we should now go tampering with it once the
>> original artists has passed.
>
> It's also more than that, which is why I have such strong feelings on
> this issue.
>
> There seems to be this cavalier attitude among people, such as the
> original poster and even people in the film industry itself, who see
> nothing wrong with altering another person's work in order to make it
> "up to date." But if we went around altering every work of art,
> whether it be a film or a painting or a piece of music--perhaps not
> leaving any evidence of the existence of the original version--we risk
> eradicating some very important pieces to our cultural history, and
> reflections of the times in which they were created. By not seeing,
> say, a Michaelangelo work in its original form we cannot appreciate
> the period in which this work was done, not the times, the people, the
> mindset, the philosophy, nothing, and it would be much harder for us
> to understand Italy, the Church and even Europe itself during the
> Renaissance.
Are you the guy that raised the fuss to make that guy take down those repro
statues in his yard on Beverly Blvd years ago that had the painted on pubic
hair? Those were hilarious updates! Shame on you Boaz!
<snip> (pun intended)
> On the other hand, I am against any kind of remake in order to make
> the film "reflect" the sensibilities of the times. I think the
> "remakes" of "Planet of the Apes" and "The Time Machine" speak for
> themselves about the "sensibilities" of the times in which they were
> made.
>
> Boaz
But didn't they make a monkey out of Heston?
You gotta love the slyness of that one!
I still am proud to say I haven't seen that remake yet...
Mike Jackson
> Mike Jackson <men...@digiscape.com> wrote in message
> news:<B8D36F7C.DA86%men...@digiscape.com>...
>
>> I know Dennis who has the site pretty well. I think he put the guy's
>> StarGate thing up because it was something remotely "2001" related and he
>> rather big-heartedly features a lot of stuff that isn't always the most
>> profession fan made stuff... I just think that you are getting yourself
>> worked up over relatively little.
>
> What got me "worked up" wasn't Dennis' site so much as the other
> thread that has this "proposal" in re-doing all of the effects in
> "2001." The subject heading is almost the same. Check it out. I saw it
> before I saw Dennis's site.
Okay, there's two threads here and I thought they just branched off of
one... I wasn't really following it until I saw your post.
Well, Dennis has discussed with me wanting to see someone do Clarke's
"2061", which intrigues me in a morbid way. It's really a mess of a novel,
but of course a lot of things have overtaken what we know now from even the
time it was written, and the pioneering of space really hasn't happened at a
pace that those event's seem possible in a scant 59 years from now.
I think what drives a lot of fans for more of something like "2001" is a
great overenthusiastic perhaps love for the original film. As unnecessary as
"2010" was, and how poorly it turned out" there's still that echo of
enthusiasm it brought to me way back then. To Hyam's credit "2010" did have
a nice subplot about the senseless of US/USSR animosity that was very timely
when it came out.
There's seems to be a lot of that in sci-fi, Star Trek especially not
knowing when to quit when they were ahead, though something like
"Enterprise" has some untapped as yet potential...
>> No one's going to ever touch "2001's" negatives to update or improve upon
>> it.
>
> Amen to that.
>
> Boaz
The one thing I would wonder about is what Kubrick would change or what he
would have to say about revising movies the way Spielberg and Lucas did.
It's always the great fun to talk to another artist about what they want
wish they could have changed or done differently and it might be especially
insightful from someone like Kubrick who had a Michelangelo like ability to
create flawlessness in his work.
Chris Cathcart
> As far as the effects in "2001"; I still find them superb. Kubrick's
> beautifully done, meticulous, finely-crafted stop-motion animations
> are, to me, MUCH more convincing than any CGI film effects I've seen
> (in fact, I've yet to see any that don't look like just what they are).
I have to agree. CGI animation produces a "fake" look to the subject.
I don't know why, short of absolute reality-imitation, any filmmaker
of true distinction would use them. Hard to explain why they look so
fake . . . has something to do with an all-too-glossy, smoothed-out
(or maybe it's too-rough) appearance.
I suppose the studios are going that direction because it's CHEAPER to
do it that way, realism taking a back seat.
> The fact that a couple/few short sequences of some animated "cutouts" in
> the film don't look quite as good as they did to me in 1968 is meaning-
> less and less than unimportant. Also, IMO, if the Stargate sequence
> looks "dated" (which it's not, to my eyes & ears), it's more likely
> because of the countless "ripoffs" and uses of the effect through the
> years -- starting with ABC "Tuesday Night At the Movies" intro/logo
> sometime in the early '70s -- than it is the "primitive" technology of
> the slit-scan device.
Actually, there is something awesome about the Star Gate. If it
*were* done today, it wouldn't be especially unique given current
technology. It probably would have been done in some form or another
using the technology available now, hence it wouldn't have its
originality. It was the first of its kind when it was actually made,
and everything since is a knock-off of some kind. Maybe SK really did
know what '68 was the right time to make the movie, *before* anything
else like it would be made (in terms of special effects, that is).
I still think something like it could be done better now, but maybe
such a "Star Gate" should be left to be done in a different movie,
leaving the original one in _2001_ intact as it should be. Do the
effects strike me as somewhat dated? Yes, but that really doesn't
bother me in the grand scheme of the film. It's great no matter what.
And it's certainly not dated to my ears . . . love the Ligeti. (And
there's just no way CGI effects would improve on the final hotel room
scenes or the Star Child.)
The film as it was made, is as it is, and as such, I couldn't imagine
it being different and having it be another movie. I couldn't
actually envision the Star Gate being different and really have the
same movie in mind.
Boaz
You made some good points and have helped support my argument on the
other thread. Thanks.
However, ironically, Douglas Trumbull actually did the opening for the
ABC Movie of the Week back in the early '70s. ABC hired him to do it
and he needed the work to pay the bills.
Much of the solarizing-type of effects in the Stargate scenes had been
done in experimental films before, just not on the same level as
Kubrick used them. Still, the use of them and the "psychedelic" effect
it has on some audiences is another example of how this film should be
respected for what it is and the period of time it was created.
Boaz
Don Davis
I can see this idea is falling flat here. Fair enough, and the reasons
expressed are good. Rest assured that such a thing is not likely so far as I
know , but if I hear of a fan produced 'new stargate' sequence I would be
curious to see it.
Don
JeffD
snipped
> You made some good points and have helped support my argument on the
> other thread. Thanks.
Thanks, and you're welcome.
> However, ironically, Douglas Trumbull actually did the opening for the
> ABC Movie of the Week back in the early '70s. ABC hired him to do it
> and he needed the work to pay the bills.
I had completely forgotten about this, but now that you mention it, I
do recall reading about it many years ago. The ABC thing was just
*too* similar. (Wasn't the "Movie of the Week" on Tuesday nights?)
> Much of the solarizing-type of effects in the Stargate scenes had been
> done in experimental films before, just not on the same level as
> Kubrick used them. Still, the use of them and the "psychedelic" effect
> it has on some audiences is another example of how this film should be
> respected for what it is and the period of time it was created.
>
> Boaz
Absolutely.
Jeff D.
JeffD
>
> JeffD <fre...@webspan.net> wrote in message news:<3CAE6D...@webspan.net>...
>
> > As far as the effects in "2001"; I still find them superb. Kubrick's
> > beautifully done, meticulous, finely-crafted stop-motion animations
> > are, to me, MUCH more convincing than any CGI film effects I've seen
> > (in fact, I've yet to see any that don't look like just what they are).
>
> I have to agree. CGI animation produces a "fake" look to the subject.
> I don't know why, short of absolute reality-imitation, any filmmaker
> of true distinction would use them. Hard to explain why they look so
> fake . . . has something to do with an all-too-glossy, smoothed-out
> (or maybe it's too-rough) appearance.
A friend of mine -- much better versed in digi-ness than I -- has
described them similarly. To me they look "overlaid" or something -
the edges (?) of things not appearing believably integrated into the
shot(s), for one thing. Often their appearance seems to be more of
a highly-polished looking version of what you see in video games.
> I suppose the studios are going that direction because it's CHEAPER to
> do it that way, realism taking a back seat.
I don't think there's any question that it's cheaper than any of the
older style methods (in general), although it's probably not so cheap
to get really *superb* digi-effects - depending on what's actually being
done, the length of the sequence, etc. So the result is what we have -
realistic "_enough_".
> > The fact that a couple/few short sequences of some animated "cutouts" in
> > the film don't look quite as good as they did to me in 1968 is meaning-
> > less and less than unimportant. Also, IMO, if the Stargate sequence
> > looks "dated" (which it's not, to my eyes & ears), it's more likely
> > because of the countless "ripoffs" and uses of the effect through the
> > years -- starting with ABC "Tuesday Night At the Movies" intro/logo
> > sometime in the early '70s -- than it is the "primitive" technology of
> > the slit-scan device.
>
> Actually, there is something awesome about the Star Gate. If it
> *were* done today, it wouldn't be especially unique given current
> technology. It probably would have been done in some form or another
> using the technology available now, hence it wouldn't have its
> originality. It was the first of its kind when it was actually made,
> and everything since is a knock-off of some kind. Maybe SK really did
> know what '68 was the right time to make the movie, *before* anything
> else like it would be made (in terms of special effects, that is).
>
> I still think something like it could be done better now,
But so what? What 's the point? Just to *do* it digitally?
> but maybe
> such a "Star Gate" should be left to be done in a different movie,
> leaving the original one in _2001_ intact as it should be.
May I humbly say: It goes without saying. Maybe the makers of the
different movie should come up with their OWN original ideas for a
"trip" sequence, or whatever, and forget about '2001'.
> Do the
> effects strike me as somewhat dated? Yes, but that really doesn't
> bother me in the grand scheme of the film. It's great no matter what.
> And it's certainly not dated to my ears . . . love the Ligeti. (And
> there's just no way CGI effects would improve on the final hotel room
> scenes or the Star Child.)
For me personally, probably the single most profound scene in film
(other than early man discovering his tool).
(The bone, that is.)
(I mean the animal bone.)
> The film as it was made, is as it is, and as such, I couldn't imagine
> it being different and having it be another movie. I couldn't
> actually envision the Star Gate being different and really have the
> same movie in mind.
There ya' go, Chris!
Best,
Jeff D.
Boaz
> The one thing I would wonder about is what Kubrick would change or what he
> would have to say about revising movies the way Spielberg and Lucas did.
There is the old axiom that says, "A work of art is never finished,
only abandoned." Kubrick's films are, to a degree, variations on the
same theme. This is not to direct any criticism at him but rather
point out that he had a particular vision of human nature and he
showed it in its various forms in his thirteen films, expanding on an
idea that may not have been sufficiently covered in his previous work.
We do that here with our postings. We each have a particular agenda we
wish to share with others, and we present them in variying degrees
that depend upon the the topics we discuss--whether they be Kubrick's
films, the films of other directors or events going on in the world.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It's all part of our
nature of self-expression.
What does all this have to do with revising one's work? It's tempting
to go back and tinker with something if one can. (I'm guilty of that
with this EWS/Honeymooners parody I did with Ich; I recently did a few
more minor revisions to the script, which is still on my site.
However, had it been a finished work on film or video it hardly seems
likely that I would do more to it, unless I were to take existing
footage and play around with it.) If Kubrick did any "revising" of his
films it was to restore the picture quality and maybe tweak and clean
up the soundtrack. I've heard rumors that he was interested in redoing
the Stargate scene, but I don't know how true that is, and if it was,
it died with Kubrick.
Arthur C. Clarke has revised some of his work over the years. His
novel "Against the Fall of Night" was reworked and retitled "The City
and the Stars." He rewrote the prologue to "Childhood's End" when the
original one was dated by the space race of the '60s. But a novelist
has that kind of flexibility while a filmmaker needs the money and
tools to make his changes, and then the pieces may not always fit
together when trying to re-do the puzzle.
As for Lucas doing what he's done to the Star Wars films, I can
understand that; he's trying to not make "Episode 4" look like what it
is, a film shot in 1976. He's soon going to release "Episode 2," which
means the saga is being told backwards. And it would look a bit odd to
be telling this story of Annakin and Luke Skywalker, and then by the
time you get to the fourth episode it begins to look antiquated, and
yet it's supposed to be this chronological telling of an epic tale. If
one still has a copy of the original "Episode 4" and look at it
compared to their copy of "The Phantom Menace" it ends up looking
small and spare compared to the new ones. So there is a logical
explanation to his work.
As for Spielberg and "ET," I didn't see the new version, but it sounds
to me it was an attempt to see how much more money could be milked
from this cash cow.
MGM made a similar (and expensive) mistake when they re-released "Gone
With The Wind" in 1967, when they re-scanned the original negative
(shot in full frame 1.33 to 1 aspect ratio) to show it not only in
1.85 but blown up into a 70mm print so they could augment the original
soundtrack into a simulated stereo track. This was done to not only
have a revival of the film but to bring in the younger audiences in
the '60s who were now used to seeing films in 70mm and with stereo
soundtracks. The results were disasterous. I don't know how well it
did at the box office, but artistically the film suffered. The blowup
to 70mm made the picture a bit grainier and desaturated the vibrant
colors (this film was originally shot in the three-strip Technicolor
process) and the 1.85 cropping virtually wrecked the carefully
composed shots meant for the full frame format. Fortunately, today one
can see it on TV or videocassette or DVD in the original form David O.
Selznick intended it to be.
> It's always the great fun to talk to another artist about what they want
> wish they could have changed or done differently and it might be especially
> insightful from someone like Kubrick who had a Michelangelo like ability to
> create flawlessness in his work.
Yes, but look how many years he labored on the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel.
I recall seeing on TV an interview with Orson Welles, and he said he
could never look at "Citizen Kane" or (especially) "Ambersons" because
there would be so much he'd like to go back and fix (even with "Kane")
and he knew he couldn't do it. So his feeling was to just go on and
try to make more pictures.
Boaz
Boaz
> in article ea73354.02040...@posting.google.com, Boaz at
> boa...@lycos.com 04/05/2002 11:21 PM went on about :
> > There seems to be this cavalier attitude among people, such as the
> > original poster and even people in the film industry itself, who see
> > nothing wrong with altering another person's work in order to make it
> > "up to date." But if we went around altering every work of art,
> > whether it be a film or a painting or a piece of music--perhaps not
> > leaving any evidence of the existence of the original version--we risk
> > eradicating some very important pieces to our cultural history, and
> > reflections of the times in which they were created. By not seeing,
> > say, a Michaelangelo work in its original form we cannot appreciate
> > the period in which this work was done, not the times, the people, the
> > mindset, the philosophy, nothing, and it would be much harder for us
> > to understand Italy, the Church and even Europe itself during the
> > Renaissance.
>
> Are you the guy that raised the fuss to make that guy take down those repro
> statues in his yard on Beverly Blvd years ago that had the painted on pubic
> hair? Those were hilarious updates! Shame on you Boaz!
Oh, yuk, yuk. That was so funny I forgot to laugh. No, that was
someone who came here with trust fund money from the profits of his
father's oil wells in the Middle East. I suppose his view of art was
"I don't know much, but I know what I like," or perhaps a variation of
Redmond Barry's "I like the use of the color blue by the artist." That
place is long gone, the statues removed to who-knows-where and the
mansion itself burned down when the guy's wife was pissed off at him.
And the place was on Sunset in Beverly Hills. It's still an empty lot.
> <snip> (pun intended)
>
> > On the other hand, I am against any kind of remake in order to make
> > the film "reflect" the sensibilities of the times. I think the
> > "remakes" of "Planet of the Apes" and "The Time Machine" speak for
> > themselves about the "sensibilities" of the times in which they were
> > made.
> >
> > Boaz
>
> But didn't they make a monkey out of Heston?
> You gotta love the slyness of that one!
No, I hated it. It wasn't even that clever, nor was the "Ape Lincoln"
ending.
> I still am proud to say I haven't seen that remake yet...
Then you wouldn't have loved it either, slyness or not. The movie had
a big opening weekend, but after a couple of weeks business dropped
off sharply. Same with "The Time Machine." That should say something
right there.
Boaz
Peter Tonguette
> The one thing I would wonder about is what Kubrick would change or what
>he
> would have to say about revising movies the way Spielberg and Lucas did.
Well, my own view is that artistic "revisions" are complicated once the film in
question has been released.
We're not talking about an "Ambersons" or "Greed" situation here where the
filmmakers prepared their own cuts only to have them taken away by the studios.
If Welles and von Stroheim had an opportunity to reassemble their films to
something more closely resembling their original visions, that wouldn't be
artistic refinement since their final cuts were never released to begin with.
But with a film like "2001," where Kubrick had final cut when he made his first
pass at the film, I'd be more hesitant to fully accept
Kubrick's hypothetical revisions. I think that there's a point at which a work
of art takes on a life of its own - where it becomes "bigger" than its author,
so to speak.
A possible solution is to allow directorial "tinkering" so long as the original
cut remains alongside the "new" version. This appears to have happened,
happily, with Coppola's "Apocalypse Now"; stores are still stocking the
original film along with his "Redux" cut.
Peter
Boaz
It's on the other thread, and it was just something they did for their
own embellishment and amusement.
Please keep this thought in mind: films, like any work of art, are
also time capsules of the era in which they were created. To tamper or
alter any portion of it in order to "update" it is similar to digging
up a time capsule that may have originally been buried in, say, 1968
in order to toss in a digitally remastered CD of whatever rock album
on vinyl was put in there and then removing the original vinyl album
because the CD may have some "extra tracks" the original didn't.
Boaz
Mike Jackson
Oh, well, there was one on Beverly when I was out there too on the north
side of the street near where that Citron dealer/repair place was that was
similar, though it wasn't a mansion, just a big house with butt-ass ugly
statutes...
>> <snip> (pun intended)
>>
>>> On the other hand, I am against any kind of remake in order to make
>>> the film "reflect" the sensibilities of the times. I think the
>>> "remakes" of "Planet of the Apes" and "The Time Machine" speak for
>>> themselves about the "sensibilities" of the times in which they were
>>> made.
>>>
>>> Boaz
>>
>> But didn't they make a monkey out of Heston?
>> You gotta love the slyness of that one!
>
> No, I hated it. It wasn't even that clever, nor was the "Ape Lincoln"
> ending.
Heck it sounds worth firing up the engines of MST3K for!
>> I still am proud to say I haven't seen that remake yet...
>
> Then you wouldn't have loved it either, slyness or not. The movie had
> a big opening weekend, but after a couple of weeks business dropped
> off sharply. Same with "The Time Machine." That should say something
> right there.
>
> Boaz
People are mostly stupid.
And the corollary is they often do stupid things...
The joy comes from sitting far enough away, like say the Ort Cloud and
laughing at it all...
Mike Jackson
> Mike Jackson <men...@digiscape.com> wrote in message
> news:<B8D3ECFB.DAC8%men...@digiscape.com>...
>
>> The one thing I would wonder about is what Kubrick would change or what he
>> would have to say about revising movies the way Spielberg and Lucas did.
>
> There is the old axiom that says, "A work of art is never finished,
> only abandoned." Kubrick's films are, to a degree, variations on the
> same theme. This is not to direct any criticism at him but rather
> point out that he had a particular vision of human nature and he
> showed it in its various forms in his thirteen films, expanding on an
> idea that may not have been sufficiently covered in his previous work.
> We do that here with our postings. We each have a particular agenda we
> wish to share with others, and we present them in variying degrees
> that depend upon the the topics we discuss--whether they be Kubrick's
> films, the films of other directors or events going on in the world.
> And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It's all part of our
> nature of self-expression.
Well so much praise and criticism are leveled at Kubrick and I wonder about
the funny things he might have to say, even about the StarGate sequence for
example. No one really can say what traveling faster than light or down
some extra-dimensional wormhole whatzit would look like and he may very well
have changed his mind about something like that later in life. You know
we're prattling about what genius it is visually and he's pained every time
he heard it might not be surprising.
The real side note to it all is that "2001" is more of a film about human
nature than it is sci-fi. The sci-fi is so dazzling that it's easy for most
people to miss that. It might be plausible that he was forever annoyed with
the Ultimate Trip tag because in some ways a lot of people who filled the
seats way back when seemed to miss the real thrust he intended entirely...
> What does all this have to do with revising one's work? It's tempting
> to go back and tinker with something if one can. (I'm guilty of that
> with this EWS/Honeymooners parody I did with Ich; I recently did a few
> more minor revisions to the script, which is still on my site.
> However, had it been a finished work on film or video it hardly seems
> likely that I would do more to it, unless I were to take existing
> footage and play around with it.) If Kubrick did any "revising" of his
> films it was to restore the picture quality and maybe tweak and clean
> up the soundtrack. I've heard rumors that he was interested in redoing
> the Stargate scene, but I don't know how true that is, and if it was,
> it died with Kubrick.
It seems like he was always going forward too steadily for that to be
something other than a passing notion. He probably joked about it and
someone took him seriously.
The real sad thing is that it seemed for all his ability to move heaven and
earth to get the time and toys he needed to make films that he probably
still had more ideas than time and money to do them all.
> Arthur C. Clarke has revised some of his work over the years. His
> novel "Against the Fall of Night" was reworked and retitled "The City
> and the Stars." He rewrote the prologue to "Childhood's End" when the
> original one was dated by the space race of the '60s. But a novelist
> has that kind of flexibility while a filmmaker needs the money and
> tools to make his changes, and then the pieces may not always fit
> together when trying to re-do the puzzle.
Well, digital technology could do some revisions like that now and in the
future it might be even cheaper and simpler, but there is something lost
when a film is endlessly revised so it reflects nothing of the time it was
originally made..
The thing with 2001 is that you could retackle the entire story in a way and
call it 2101 and it wouldn't seem like we were anymore distant from that
story coming true than in 1968. But too much of the time remake films aren't
trying to be something startling and new in their take, but just updating it
for the tastes of the moment.
> As for Lucas doing what he's done to the Star Wars films, I can
> understand that; he's trying to not make "Episode 4" look like what it
> is, a film shot in 1976. He's soon going to release "Episode 2," which
> means the saga is being told backwards. And it would look a bit odd to
> be telling this story of Annakin and Luke Skywalker, and then by the
> time you get to the fourth episode it begins to look antiquated, and
> yet it's supposed to be this chronological telling of an epic tale. If
> one still has a copy of the original "Episode 4" and look at it
> compared to their copy of "The Phantom Menace" it ends up looking
> small and spare compared to the new ones. So there is a logical
> explanation to his work.
Of all the evils in the world, especially now, I could care less what Lucas
and Spielberg do with their films. They are bonbons, not a hearty meal...
> As for Spielberg and "ET," I didn't see the new version, but it sounds
> to me it was an attempt to see how much more money could be milked
> from this cash cow.
He might have thought there's was more of a nostalgia factor going for it in
box office than there was. Probably some marketeer told him so...
> MGM made a similar (and expensive) mistake when they re-released "Gone
> With The Wind" in 1967, when they re-scanned the original negative
> (shot in full frame 1.33 to 1 aspect ratio) to show it not only in
> 1.85 but blown up into a 70mm print so they could augment the original
> soundtrack into a simulated stereo track. This was done to not only
> have a revival of the film but to bring in the younger audiences in
> the '60s who were now used to seeing films in 70mm and with stereo
> soundtracks. The results were disasterous. I don't know how well it
> did at the box office, but artistically the film suffered. The blowup
> to 70mm made the picture a bit grainier and desaturated the vibrant
> colors (this film was originally shot in the three-strip Technicolor
> process) and the 1.85 cropping virtually wrecked the carefully
> composed shots meant for the full frame format. Fortunately, today one
> can see it on TV or videocassette or DVD in the original form David O.
> Selznick intended it to be.
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn... It's an impressive looking production
but is much ado about nothing in content.
>> It's always the great fun to talk to another artist about what they want
>> wish they could have changed or done differently and it might be especially
>> insightful from someone like Kubrick who had a Michelangelo like ability to
>> create flawlessness in his work.
>
> Yes, but look how many years he labored on the ceiling of the Sistine
> Chapel.
All those years lying on his back too!
> I recall seeing on TV an interview with Orson Welles, and he said he
> could never look at "Citizen Kane" or (especially) "Ambersons" because
> there would be so much he'd like to go back and fix (even with "Kane")
> and he knew he couldn't do it. So his feeling was to just go on and
> try to make more pictures.
>
> Boaz
I sometimes suspect that was maybe Kubrick's attitude as well. Might we get
the speech like William "Fucking" Shatner gave from SK about getting out and
getting some fresh air?
Probably...
Ooooh, gotta go; "Soylent Green" is on TCM!
Man nothing like a good Charlie Heston movie... It's so oxymoronic!
"Remember Tuesday is Soylent Green Day."
Mike Jackson
ptong...@aol.com 04/06/2002 1:20 PM went on about :
> Mike Jackson wrote:
>
>> The one thing I would wonder about is what Kubrick would change or what he
>> would have to say about revising movies the way Spielberg and Lucas did.
>>
> Well, my own view is that artistic "revisions" are complicated once the film
> in question has been released.
Well, it's just an unspoken sort of rule of the art form. I'm not sure I can
think of many of these sorts of things that weren't done on the strength of
the filmmakers initiative alone other than Spielberg and Lucas. The oldest
example I can think of are the copies taped of TCM I have of both the
versions of "The Big Sleep" the 1946 cut being the one most people have seen
and the 1945 cut that makes the movie make a lot more sense...
I guess once a movie enters the cultural consciousness most people are loath
to the idea it could ever be re-interpreted which is always strange to me
since in theater this isn't just common, it's practically a given...
> We're not talking about an "Ambersons" or "Greed" situation here where the
> filmmakers prepared their own cuts only to have them taken away by the
> studios. If Welles and von Stroheim had an opportunity to reassemble their
> films to something more closely resembling their original visions, that
> wouldn't be artistic refinement since their final cuts were never released to
> begin with.
True...
> But with a film like "2001," where Kubrick had final cut when he made his
> first pass at the film, I'd be more hesitant to fully accept Kubrick's
> hypothetical revisions. I think that there's a point at which a work of art
> takes on a life of its own - where it becomes "bigger" than its author, so to
> speak.
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly where the story started that Kubrick wanted to
revise the StarGate, but it is intriguing to wonder about. It would seem
more than a bit of a slight as well to Trumbull and all the guys who worked
on the original, but then I wonder what Doug would have to say about it as
well.
I would imagine if anything they would have only tinkered with the landscape
stuff and not the slitscan just as a guess if they even with more than a
passing fancy ever considered it...
> A possible solution is to allow directorial "tinkering" so long as the
> original cut remains alongside the "new" version. This appears to have
> happened, happily, with Coppola's "Apocalypse Now"; stores are still stocking
> the original film along with his "Redux" cut.
>
> Peter
If Kubrick ever even really uttered a thing about doing something like this
I imagine it was probably just a little sanguine pang about what he more he
could have done with better tools and what artist doesn't feel that way?
Boaz
> Boaz wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> > You made some good points and have helped support my argument on the
> > other thread. Thanks.
>
> Thanks, and you're welcome.
My pleasure.
>
> > However, ironically, Douglas Trumbull actually did the opening for the
> > ABC Movie of the Week back in the early '70s. ABC hired him to do it
> > and he needed the work to pay the bills.
>
> I had completely forgotten about this, but now that you mention it, I
> do recall reading about it many years ago. The ABC thing was just
> *too* similar. (Wasn't the "Movie of the Week" on Tuesday nights?)
I think it played on both Tuesday and Saturday nights, if I remember
correctly. Perhaps the suits at ABC at the time relegated it from
Saturdays to Tuesdays. But I do remember Saturday nights from 8:30
until 10:00 they would have their movie-of-the-week, which is where
the term came from. Actually, many of them weren't too bad, and some
were almost good enough to have been theatrical films. I do recall one
film that premiered in November of '71 on a Saturday night, a nice
little man vs. machine edge-of-your-seat thriller called, "Duel." It
was sometime later that I found out that Spielberg had directed that
one and he was about 23 at the time he did it. (And we all know some
years later he and Trumbull would collaborate on "Close Encounters.")
Boaz
JeffD
>
> JeffD <fre...@webspan.net> wrote in message news:<3CAF35...@webspan.net>...
> > Boaz wrote:
> > snipped
> > > You made some good points and have helped support my argument on
> > > the
> > > other thread. Thanks.
> >
> > Thanks, and you're welcome.
>
> My pleasure.
> >
> > > However, ironically, Douglas Trumbull actually did the opening for
> > > the ABC Movie of the Week back in the early '70s. ABC hired him to
> > > do it and he needed the work to pay the bills.
> >
> > I had completely forgotten about this, but now that you mention it, I
> > do recall reading about it many years ago. The ABC thing was just
> > *too* similar. (Wasn't the "Movie of the Week" on Tuesday nights?)
>
> I think it played on both Tuesday and Saturday nights, if I remember
> correctly. Perhaps the suits at ABC at the time relegated it from
> Saturdays to Tuesdays. But I do remember Saturday nights from 8:30
> until 10:00 they would have their movie-of-the-week, which is where
> the term came from. Actually, many of them weren't too bad, and some
> were almost good enough to have been theatrical films.
Yes, they were. In fact, as soon as I read your above last sentence, and
in the *split second* before I read....
> I do recall one film that premiered in November of '71 on a Saturday
> night, a nice little man vs. machine edge-of-your-seat thriller called,
> "Duel."
...I was actually going to ask if you remember when "Duel" first aired
on there! :o
> It was sometime later that I found out that Spielberg had directed
> that one and he was about 23 at the time he did it. (And we all know
> some years later he and Trumbull would collaborate on "Close
> Encounters.")
>Boaz
I didn't know 'Spielberg' from an iceberg at the time, but after seeing
"Duel", I made a mental note of his name and looked foward to whatever
that name might produce in the future, should he continue to make films.
I couldn't have been more disappointed, as it turned out.
You might already know that "Duel" was indeed shown theatrically in
Europe.
It's funny to contrast this with my experience of Kubrick. When I
first saw "2001" (back in '68), I didn't know his name either. But
I remember that it was the first time that I paid such close attention
to the credits at the end of a film, and I very much wanted to know more
about this great "mind" that I had sensed behind every frame of the movie
I had just seen. I remember asking my mother if she had ever heard of
this "Stanley Kubrick" (I was 14 at the time). A little more than a
year later, I can still remember the particular day I came home from
school, took off my jacket and draped it over a kitchen chair. As I did
so, I happened to glance through the opening leading into our dining
room, where something caught my eye -- a white paperback book. From the
distance I was away, I could just barely make out the title on its spine:
"The Making of Kubrick's 2001". My mother had bought it that day for
me. I didn't even know there was such a book out, and I vividly recall
my elation as I hurried over to the table -- sort of extremely wide-eyed
and open-mouthed, with like this "tingling" in my stomach. Finally, I was
able to read about this Stanley Kubrick guy who seemed to be responsible
for *everything* in his films. I looked foward to whatever that name
might produce in the future (as well as seeing what I discovered he had
already made). I couldn't have been more impressed, as it turned out.
Jeff D.
Tansal Arnas
> Anyhoo, Brian de Palma's alreddy redun 2001:a spase oddity, expset he made
> it better, 'coz they got to Mars, an saw the alien, an got a CGI history of
> Earth, an had a BIG explosion at the end :-)
Agreed. Misson To Mars puts 2001 to shame.
Tansal
WARNING: Extreme dose of sarcasm to be found in this message.
Tansal Arnas
> *2001* is fine as is. No alterations needed...or, for that matter, wanted.
>
> Statusquosmith :)
Agreed, and I think the slit-scan procedure produced a far more compelling
visual effect than CGI would today, or even tomorrow. When those diamonds
come on screen, moving slowly away while the streaks of light are still
moving quickly forward, is an astonishing moment in the sequence.
Tansal
BTW, do you need help growing a nose? You seem rather froggish.
Tansal Arnas
> A possible solution is to allow directorial "tinkering" so long as the
> original cut remains alongside the "new" version. This appears to have
> happened, happily, with Coppola's "Apocalypse Now"; stores are still
> stocking the original film along with his "Redux" cut.
And the ability to compare them is rather rewarding. The changes are not
just the adding and rearranging of material, but go as far as drastically
altering the color-correction in many scenes. I'm among the few,
apparently, who prefer Redux.
Tansal
Dave C
"Tansal Arnas" <tan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B8D54716.A87D%tan...@yahoo.com...
On seeing "Mission to Mars" (big mistake there on my part, I know), I just
sat there dumbfounded, thinking "This is unbelievable!" - and NOT in a good
way!
Dave C
gh
Tansal Arnas <tan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Agreed, and I think the slit-scan procedure produced a far more compelling
> visual effect than CGI would today, or even tomorrow. When those diamonds
> come on screen, moving slowly away while the streaks of light are still
> moving quickly forward, is an astonishing moment in the sequence.
That is excellent visual design at work. Regardless of the actual
techniques used, a good sense of design is the most important quality
and that is as rare today as it was in 1968 or any other time.
G
Angel C. Little
>
> > Anyhoo, Brian de Palma's alreddy redun 2001:a spase oddity, expset he
made
> > it better, 'coz they got to Mars, an saw the alien, an got a CGI history
of
> > Earth, an had a BIG explosion at the end :-)
>
> Agreed. Misson To Mars puts 2001 to shame.
What about Red Planet and Ghosts Of Mars? All inquiring minds want to know!
;)
--
Angel C. Little - remove "nospam" to reply
"You need to get with program buddy, just because you paid $100.00 bucks
for your DVD player at Wal-Mart doesn't mean jack shit!" -Eyeswideshut77
Widescreen Advocacy - http://www.widescreen.org
My DVD Collection -
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=ANGELLITTLE
Tansal Arnas
> On seeing "Mission to Mars" (big mistake there on my part, I know), I just
> sat there dumbfounded, thinking "This is unbelievable!" - and NOT in a good
> way!
I got more laughs per minute from M2M than any other movie that year! I
don't think a single person in the theatre respected that film... Everyone
was laughing and making fun. Red Planet was far better than M2M, whatever
that means. I skipped Ghosts of Mars.
Tansal
kdc
Private Ryan". And maybe at some point in the future we'll be invaded by
really awful aliens, and he can go back and put the guns back in the ET
cops' hands. In fact, add in lots more guns, and those lightning-tanks that
zap godzilla.
kdc
he lived in L.A. and won an oscar for exec-producing "Chariots Of Fire".
This was in an E! True Hollywood Story (or something similar) about Princess
Di.
"Boaz" <boa...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ea73354.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Mike Jackson <men...@digiscape.com> wrote in message
news:<B8D3E7F5.DAC3%men...@digiscape.com>...
> > in article ea73354.02040...@posting.google.com, Boaz at
> > boa...@lycos.com 04/05/2002 11:21 PM went on about :
>
> > > There seems to be this cavalier attitude among people, such as the
> > > original poster and even people in the film industry itself, who see
> > > nothing wrong with altering another person's work in order to make it
> > > "up to date." But if we went around altering every work of art,
> > > whether it be a film or a painting or a piece of music--perhaps not
> > > leaving any evidence of the existence of the original version--we risk
> > > eradicating some very important pieces to our cultural history, and
> > > reflections of the times in which they were created. By not seeing,
> > > say, a Michaelangelo work in its original form we cannot appreciate
> > > the period in which this work was done, not the times, the people, the
> > > mindset, the philosophy, nothing, and it would be much harder for us
> > > to understand Italy, the Church and even Europe itself during the
> > > Renaissance.
> >
> > Are you the guy that raised the fuss to make that guy take down those
repro
> > statues in his yard on Beverly Blvd years ago that had the painted on
pubic
> > hair? Those were hilarious updates! Shame on you Boaz!
>
Philip Sondericker
meak...@pacbell.net wrote on 4/7/02 1:04 PM:
This is one of the things that bugs me about Spielberg. His lack of
conviction in his own work goes beyond merely changing a few visuals here
and there. In an interview on the "Close Encounters" DVD, he speaks of how
he'd make the Richard Dreyfuss character completely different if he were to
make the film today--now that he's a family man, he simply can't relate to a
guy whose obsessions would lead him to abandon his family. I can't quite
decide if this is merely a lack of imagination, or, as stated above, a
complete lack of conviction in his own vision.
gh
Philip Sondericker <phil...@icehouse.net> wrote:
> In an interview on the "Close Encounters" DVD, he speaks of how
> he'd make the Richard Dreyfuss character completely different if he were to
> make the film today--now that he's a family man, he simply can't relate to a
> guy whose obsessions would lead him to abandon his family.
I guess an updated Roy Neary would also be a multimillionaire instead of
a blue collar worker?
G
Chris Cathcart
JeffD
That, plus the fact that he is a dork.
Jeff D.
Boaz
I remember it very well because for a few days after I saw it whenever
I was in a car I'd keep looking behind me to see if a huge tanker
truck was following us. It had that kind of effect on me. For a few
days.
>
> > It was sometime later that I found out that Spielberg had directed
> > that one and he was about 23 at the time he did it. (And we all know
> > some years later he and Trumbull would collaborate on "Close
> > Encounters.")
>
> >Boaz
>
> I didn't know 'Spielberg' from an iceberg at the time, but after seeing
> "Duel", I made a mental note of his name and looked foward to whatever
> that name might produce in the future, should he continue to make films.
> I couldn't have been more disappointed, as it turned out.
I felt let down that he take more artistic risks, but after having
read about him in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," I came to the
conclusion that risk taking was never in his vocabulary. Still, I kind
of like his technical knowledge and his way of blocking out a shot for
a scene.
>
> You might already know that "Duel" was indeed shown theatrically in
> Europe.
Yes, I'd read that some time ago. In fact, the "longer" version now
shows up on TV. Recently, Encore ran the longer version. It was still
only 90 minutes, but obviously the 90 minutes air time on commercial
TV has to leave room for ads, so perhaps anywhere from seven to ten
minutes had to be trimmed when it was originally aired. The longer
version gives us a few more details of the trip and a backstory of
Dennis Weaver's character, which is nicely done and not in the typical
stop-the-action-so-I-can-tell-you-something-about-myself scene.
> It's funny to contrast this with my experience of Kubrick. When I
> first saw "2001" (back in '68), I didn't know his name either. But
> I remember that it was the first time that I paid such close attention
> to the credits at the end of a film, and I very much wanted to know more
> about this great "mind" that I had sensed behind every frame of the movie
> I had just seen. I remember asking my mother if she had ever heard of
> this "Stanley Kubrick" (I was 14 at the time). A little more than a
> year later, I can still remember the particular day I came home from
> school, took off my jacket and draped it over a kitchen chair. As I did
> so, I happened to glance through the opening leading into our dining
> room, where something caught my eye -- a white paperback book. From the
> distance I was away, I could just barely make out the title on its spine:
> "The Making of Kubrick's 2001". My mother had bought it that day for
> me. I didn't even know there was such a book out, and I vividly recall
> my elation as I hurried over to the table -- sort of extremely wide-eyed
> and open-mouthed, with like this "tingling" in my stomach. Finally, I was
> able to read about this Stanley Kubrick guy who seemed to be responsible
> for *everything* in his films. I looked foward to whatever that name
> might produce in the future (as well as seeing what I discovered he had
> already made). I couldn't have been more impressed, as it turned out.
>
> Jeff D.
You're probably the same age as I am if you first saw "2001" in '68.
My first knowledge of the film came from a huge two-page full color
spread of the film in Look magazine (appropriately enough). It was the
famous Robert McCall painting of the Orion leaving the space station.
I remember being impressed with the look of the ad, thinking that
whoever did this was pretty serious about getting the details right
for a science fiction film. And I saw the part that read
"Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Presents a Stanley Kubrick Production," and I did
a double take because I thought it at first said Stanley Kramer. I had
just seen "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," and I thought "How could he
make two films so close together?" Then I looked carefully again at
the last name and thought, "Who's Stanley Kubrick?" I'd never heard
the name before myself, but the ad with the painting made me want to
see this film and see who this Stanley Kubrick person was (I thought
maybe he was a foreign director, since even at that young age I was
familiar with the names of certain film directors, and his didn't ring
a bell at all). I'd also looked further down and saw "Screenplay by
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke." We had a lot of science fiction
books in our house, and a few of them were Clarke novels, so I knew
who he was and was even more anxious to see this, since whoever this
Kubrick guy was had actually engaged a real honest-to-goodness science
fiction writer to write the script.
Then shortly thereafter, I'd gotten, along with my classmates (I was
in the 8th grade), the April Weekly Reader, and there was a review of
"2001" in there. From what I can remember, it was both a favorable
review as well as what I thought was a well written piece about it. I
do remember the reviewer saying that this film was a huge cut above
the average science fiction movies that had been made before, citing
it as intelligent, thought provoking and with an attention to detail
that gave the audiences the feel as though they were watching
something real or at least believable.
Then my oldest brother, who was stationed at Edwards Air Force Base,
had gone to see it at the Cinerama Dome in L.A., and told me this was
a film I "gotta see!" He didn't say much, not wanting to give much
away, but he said it was unlike anything he'd ever seen before, and he
and I had seen lots of science fiction films, mostly cheap crappy
ones.
It didn't hit our town until late August of '68, but my other brother
and I were there to see it on a Saturday night. It was the most
sensational movie I had ever seen, among other praises I had for it.
(I didn't see it on a Cinerama screen, but I did see it on a 70mm
print.) We stayed for the end credits, and I'd see Kubrick's name
there as Producer and Director, then sharing screenplay credits with
Clarke, then I saw his name again as designer and director of the
special effects, and I thought, "Who IS this guy? I gotta know more
about this Kubrick person. He even does the special effects!" And
these were the most amazing effects I'd ever seen in ANY movie (but
this WAS 1968). So, that night, I became what would be a life-long fan
of Stanley Kubrick. I wanted to know more about who he was, what other
films he had made, what his next project would be. I couldn't get that
film out of my head, nor the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" theme, which I
didn't know until later was source music and not composed specifically
for the film.
A few months later, my oldest brother came home on leave, and he
(naturally) brought with him a Playboy magazine. Naturally, I was
going to sneak a peek at it. Then I noticed on the cover the words,
"Interview with Stanley Kubrick," and I almost forgot to look at the
pictures, instead going straight to the interview. (Yes, I looked at
the other pictures later, but after having read the interview my mind
was reeling too much to do more than give Miss December a passing
glance, and I put the magazine back where I found it and gave more
thought about what I'd just read from the Kubrick interview.)
That January, my parents got me the soundtrack album for my birthday.
It had the famous McCall painting on the cover and the inside had full
color pictures from the film. But they weren't just photos, they were
frame blow-ups. I practically played that album to death. (And I still
have it too!)
It wasn't until sometime late in 1970 that I'd heard about the Jerome
Agel book, but as soon as I'd heard about it I managed to hit my
favorite bookstore (at the time) and bought a copy. And I still have
that copy too. It's dogeared, the pages are yellowed and the spine is
broken, taped together with Scotch Magic tape, but I still have it! I
took it to school (I was by then in high school) and for a few days
study hall was a bit more lively when I had some friends gather around
as we perused the 98 page photo supplement. It would be the first in a
long series of books I'd end up buying and (to this day) have on my
bookshelves about Stanley Kubrick. It was also one of the first books
I'd been able to see behind-the-scene photos of a major motion picture
in production. Reading the articles about the making of it made me
appreciate the film more.
As I said, I became a life-long Kubrick fan after that, eagerly
awaiting each and every new film from him. It's not the same since
he's gone, not being able to look forward to the latest Stanley
Kubrick film. But I guess I'll survive. (Sigh.)
Boaz
Boaz
It sounds like the latter. It's as if Spielberg wants to erase
evidence of his own earlier life by alterning the content of his
films. That way when people look at his earlier work they won't say,
"Oh, this is when Spielberg was going through that ________ period of
his life." He wants to convey a certain image of himself, and he
appears to want to make sure all of his films reflect the kind of guy
he is now.
Boaz
Tansal Arnas
> This is one of the things that bugs me about Spielberg. His lack of
> conviction in his own work goes beyond merely changing a few visuals here
> and there. In an interview on the "Close Encounters" DVD, he speaks of how
> he'd make the Richard Dreyfuss character completely different if he were to
> make the film today--now that he's a family man, he simply can't relate to a
> guy whose obsessions would lead him to abandon his family. I can't quite
> decide if this is merely a lack of imagination, or, as stated above, a
> complete lack of conviction in his own vision.
Can they not both be his own vision? Visions are allowed to change.
Wouldn't you have written your high school papers differently now?
Tansal
...who understands what people are trying to get at, but is offering a
contrary opinion that he considers to be just as valid.
Tansal Arnas
How about in "Mission To Mars puts 2001 to shame"? A smidgen to be found
there, methinks.
Tansal
Boaz
> On 4/7/02 4:33 PM, "Philip Sondericker" <phil...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
> > This is one of the things that bugs me about Spielberg. His lack of
> > conviction in his own work goes beyond merely changing a few visuals here
> > and there. In an interview on the "Close Encounters" DVD, he speaks of how
> > he'd make the Richard Dreyfuss character completely different if he were to
> > make the film today--now that he's a family man, he simply can't relate to a
> > guy whose obsessions would lead him to abandon his family. I can't quite
> > decide if this is merely a lack of imagination, or, as stated above, a
> > complete lack of conviction in his own vision.
>
> Can they not both be his own vision? Visions are allowed to change.
> Wouldn't you have written your high school papers differently now?
That's the whole point, allowing visions to change. But why alter an
earlier work to prove it? Most artists will simply go on to create new
and better (we hope) works to further indicate the changes and growth
in their artistry, skills and personal vision.
And as for writing my high school papers differently now, I sure as
hell hope so. That is to say I could re-write my papers but I know I
write better now than I did then, so why re-write my old papers to
prove it? I know that if I were a high school teacher I'd rather see
what my ex-students are capable of doing now rather have them retrace
their steps to prove how much they've advanced.
Boaz
Philip Sondericker
tan...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/8/02 4:27 AM:
> On 4/7/02 4:33 PM, "Philip Sondericker" <phil...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
>> This is one of the things that bugs me about Spielberg. His lack of
>> conviction in his own work goes beyond merely changing a few visuals here
>> and there. In an interview on the "Close Encounters" DVD, he speaks of how
>> he'd make the Richard Dreyfuss character completely different if he were to
>> make the film today--now that he's a family man, he simply can't relate to a
>> guy whose obsessions would lead him to abandon his family. I can't quite
>> decide if this is merely a lack of imagination, or, as stated above, a
>> complete lack of conviction in his own vision.
>
> Can they not both be his own vision? Visions are allowed to change.
> Wouldn't you have written your high school papers differently now?
I think my point was that both visions are equally valid, even though they
are different. For example, I still have a journal that I kept while in
college. Some of it embarrasses me now. But if I rewrote it, it wouldn't be
my college journal, would it?
It's not that I object to Spielberg being a different person now than he was
25 years ago--that's just normal evolution. What I have a problem with is
his apparent shallowness as an artist. He's a different man now, so that
invalidates whatever he did in the past? What the hell is that? I thought
one of the points of art was to reflect the artist's state of mind at the
moment of creation? Stay tuned, in another 25 years he may find "Schindler's
List" completely unsatisfactory, and decide to make it over completely.
Bullwinkle
> > Why don't we just add a nose ring to the Mona Lisa? That way she'll
> > look hip and up-to-date so the young people will now go to the
> > museums. Or maybe re-do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and put a
> > nipple ring on Adam, or maybe a series of tattoos on Eve as she's
> > being tempted by the Serpent, who himself may sport a Mohawk. Maybe
> > Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden by an angel wielding a
> > lightsabre (gotta get those Star Wars fans in there!).
> >
> > How about taking some Beatle recordings and redubbing your own voice
> > over the songs, so you can be heard on the CD with John, Paul, George
> > and Ringo? Hey, you can now be the fifth Beatle! (Or can you just let
> > it be?)
Do you or anyone else here remember the song, "I'm Gonna Sit Right
Down and Write Myself a Letter?" Do you think anyone would try to
re-do it so it goes, "I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Send Myself an
E-mail" to keep up with the times? Maybe they'll listen to it on their
MP3 player, too.
Bullwinkle
Wordsmith
Perhaps he should airbrush out all the Nazis in *Schindler's List* and
insert disgruntled postal workers. Hey, it's a thought. *shrug*
Wordsmith :)
Jenelle Thurston
Such a strange situation. A truly great film gives many the urge to
create something in its image--fanfilms. StarWars has inspired so many
fanfilms and parodies that they're practically their own genre now. Hell,
Hardware Wars (the original SW parody) is coming out on DVD this month--
it came out on VHS in 97! I'm not sure if it's this same drive that has
directors going back to 'update' and 'improve' their movies, or if it's
just that films can be sold an infinite number of times if they're
changed for each iteration. I think that's it--it's done to create new
products without actually creating new products.
J. Thurston
<><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
It’s the movies that have really been running things in America ever
since they were invented. They show you what to do, how to do it, when to
do it, how to feel about it, and how to look how you feel about it.
Everybody has their own America, and then they have the pieces of a
fantasy America that they think is out there but they can’t see.
--Andy Warhol
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
In article <ea73354.02040...@posting.google.com>, boaz12
@lycos.com says...
> Don Davis <dondavi...@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:<3CACE70F...@thegrid.net>...
> > Too bad Stanley will never get a crack at this. I am well aware of the
> > concern over tampering with someone else's work, especially a classic
> > film like this one. In this era of revisionist releases, however, it is
> > no longer unthinkable.
>
> You mean in this era of people not respecting the artist's original
> work for what it is. This sort of thing almost makes me want to take
> the side of the studios and corporations in holding on to the
> copyrights in order to protect such films from this sort of thing.
> Almost.
>
> > I have to admit that this would be a tempting thing to try. Here is
> > what I would do if an HDTV or better res digital version of '2001' was
> > scanned from the best surviving material and made available. (ideally the
> > edited sections would be available as well)
>
> Why not scan from a print or interpositive, as long as you are
> proposing some artistic grave-robbing here?
>
> >
> > 1, Nearly all the orbital Earth, Lunar landscape backgrounds, and
> > planetary images would be redone, although the compositions and other
> > elements of each shot would be carefully preserved. Much of the scenery
> > model work would be replaced by computer graphics carefully fashioned to
> > not look out of place in the scene. A few flat 'cutout ' spacecraft
> > shots such as the round 'Aries' lander passing by the Earth lit Lunar
> > horizon could be completely remodeled in CGI, however perhaps using the
> > little 'views into the windows' from the original if the quality of the
> > scanned material permits.
>
> Why? Why? Why? The original footage looks perfect the way it is.
>
> > There may be some 'steadying' of the original film images done to
> > eliminate camera induced jitter in some 'updated' scenes but otherwise
> > care would be taken not to tamper with the vision of the original.
>
> The best thing would be to NOT tamper with it at all!
>
Angel C. Little
I made the mistake of going to see that piece of trash myself (M2M that is).
I
can't believe that the entire crowd of 15 was APPLAUDING when the damn
thing ended and called it a "feel good movie." Not me, I slepted through
most of
it. Dumb thing is that I rented the piece of crap on DVD hoping that maybe
giving
it a second chance might get me to have ANY respect for the movie. No,
nothing
changed on a second viewing.
Now Red Planet, that's a decent action/adventure film set on Mars - but its
not
even in the same league as our beloved 2001. :)
LONG LIVE THE ODYSSEY!!!!!