2001:aso 4K UHD Blu-ray

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

Wondering if this will be a proper 8K re-scan from the negatives, or if that will be something eventually passed-on for Criterion to handle, per BL. March/April 2018 for 2001:aso's 50th:

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/012918-1800

Steve

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:47:00 AM UTC-5, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/012918-1800

Amazon US product page reveals the 2001:aso 4K UHD Blu-ray packaging:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B12HNJW/

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81amsF5hAKL._SL1500_.jpg

Steve

[kelpzoidzl]

I want a Storaro size display to watch it.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:47:00 AM UTC-5, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Wondering if this will be a proper 8K re-scan from the negatives, or if that will be something eventually passed-on for Criterion to handle, per BL. March/April 2018 for 2001:aso's 50th:

Another Wells article on the 4K UHD BD release of 2001:aso, stemming from his interview with Vitali:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2018/04/nolans-yellowish-teal-tinted-2001-obviously-sucks/

Steve

[kelpzoidzl]

This is bizarre. Hard to believe Nolan would screw this up. The article is confusing. Have they already fuxed the problem?

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:46:25 AM UTC-4, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Amazon US product page reveals the 2001:aso 4K UHD Blu-ray packaging:
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B12HNJW/

Amazon product page zotzed as the 4K 2001:aso Blu-ray has been pushed to October 2, 2018 (per the WB shop):

https://tinyurl.com/yb2u92wd

Nolan interviewed in detail about the film-based workflow on the 2001:aso print screened at Cannes:

Variety: https://tinyurl.com/yd4d3ah7

NY Times: https://tinyurl.com/y9eqp6jw

Nice pic of KK @ Cannes:

https://tinyurl.com/yd9gwbzx

Perhaps the 4K disc has been delayed to include the recent Nolan content?

Regards,

Steve

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 12:18:20 AM UTC-4, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Nolan interviewed in detail about the film-based workflow on the 2001:aso print screened at Cannes:

Hollywood reacts to the Nolan-supervised print of 2001:aso at the ArcLight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZE8ZuCr8U

Is it that the WTF?! panel cannot address the themes of 2001:aso, or that their web audience would just tune out if they "go there"?

Jeffrey Wells commented: "Lemire: “You can interpret [2001] a lot of ways!” HE: Not really. The super-aliens who sent the monolith to earth to awaken the man-apes and turn them into bone-wielding carnivores, give them intelligence and the will to gradually evolve into homo sapiens are the sires of our species — our Gods, our fathers, our evolutionary architects. They planted one of their monoliths under the surface of the moon, knowing that sooner or later humans would fly there and uncover it, which would alert them to our evolutionary progress. At the very end ancient Dave Bowman sees the monolith at the foot of his deathbed and reaches out as a dying Christian would to a crucifix or a dying alcoholic to a fifth of Jack Daniels. And then he’s reborn into a star fetus, etc."

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2018/05/breezy-good-time-charlies/

To the point of Lemire; Wells misses that the the monolith remains an oblique reference to the next stage of an odyssey, and it's not always the same material marker object being planted by aliens as a stepping stone.

- The monolith manifests and vanishes for the neanderthals, leaving them (or, at least Moonwatcher) whacking bones and lashing out at others to intimidate them, as the monolith intimidated him. Kubrick does add a flash cut of the monolith towering above before that occurs. I don't believe, "Now the ape understands that a bone can be an instrument or weapon," was the intended message. Moonwatcher wants to tower over others as the monolith towered over him. It didn't, "give them intelligence," but showed the apes there was something more dominant than them, resulting in a quest for domination (a reckless smashing of bones progressing to an orbital defense satellite dominating the Earth). It wasn't like the monolith taught the apes a new language. That would be implanted intelligence.

- Once mankind dominates space, the monolith is reduced to a directional signal. It is physically present under the surface of the moon, generating a magnetic field until excavated, and—when touched by man—emits a beacon to Jupiter. That is all it needs to be at that stage; an oblique reference to what awaits.

- Once man defeats the highest form of his own technology as a mind/intelligence in the HAL 9000, the monolith appears as a gateway (which Bowman seeks and/or is drawn to). The monolith no longer has evolutionary or hierarchical meaning here beyond something Bowman follows in an EVA. This begins a stage where the monolith is untouchable, and it may no longer be a material object at Jupiter (it does vanish).

- The monolith is certainly not a physical object after Bowman lives out his life in the alien consciousness environment. It may have even been pulled out of his consciousness like the room environment; but from his evolutionary origins in "The dawn of man." While the monolith in that earlier sequence may not have been a similar consciousness implantation, its form may have been decided at that origin stage as something which would embed in the primeval psyche, for man to respond to throughout evolution. It remains an oblique reference to unknowable and unattainable intellect until (Bow)man is absorbed into it, evolving beyond mind and body into something celestial (starchild).

Summarily; just the material presence and function of the monolith alone can be interpreted in many ways.

Regards,

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

No one had to teach humans how to kill.

[kelpzoidzl]

I tend to want to believe Nolan has done it right. The tinkering that can occur may be te blasphemy.

[Don Stockbauer]

Seems like Clarke would have known that humans did not have to be taught to kill.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:39:27 AM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> Seems like Clarke would have known that humans did not have to be taught to kill.

"The sentinel" was about the lunar monolith. The novel and script were collaborations with SK. That the monolith gave the neanderthals *intellect as violence* is probably one of the biggest mis-reads on 2001:aso, IMO. The primates are intimidated by a form/intellect greater than them, inciting conquest through available materials (bone-to-satellite).

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

Oh well, it’s science fiction, the story need not pass the scientific method.

[Don Stockbauer]

"The sentinel" was about the lunar monolith. The novel and script were collaborations with SK. That the monolith gave the neanderthals *intellect as violence* is probably one of the biggest mis-reads on 2001:aso, IMO. The primates are intimidated by a form/intellect greater than them, inciting conquest through available materials (bone-to-satellite).

****************
Regular old plain Jane run-of-the-mill evolution is what got us to where we are, not intimidation by space aliens.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:45:00 AM UTC-4, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hollywood reacts to the Nolan-supervised print of 2001:aso at the ArcLight:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZE8ZuCr8U

The TIFF is getting the Nolan-supervised 70mm print of 2001:aso from June 6 to 14, 2018.

https://www.tiff.net/events/2001-a-space-odyssey-70mm/

I'll try and check it out.

Steve

[kelpzoidzl]

Playing at Cinerama Dome tomorrow for 6 days. Unless I can get my sister to cover for me watching my mom, i can't go.

No way can I leave my mom alone. I wonder if Nolan will prepare a disc with his specs?

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 5:51:59 PM UTC-4, s_o_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'll try and check it out.

Caught the 50th anniversary print of 2001:aso this evening. TIFF had it in cinema 1, which was about half full with a mostly respectful audience.

The good: sound and stereo separation are much improved. I may have mentioned before that my prior screenings of 2001:aso in 70mm felt like they were not in stereo; aside from the music. Well, that's all changed for the better. The six-track mix has thunderous bass, piercing high-end, dynamic stereo and clear use of the surround speaker (most notable in "The dawn of man" and the "blue ladies cashmere sweater" P.A. address on the space station).

The bad (verging on ugly): Reports of the Nolan print having a cyan cast were correct. ALL the stars in many of the space shots are cyan! Nolan used the original timing light notes from 1968, but the film elements have had a colour shift over these 50 years. Some shots are peerless (e.g., much of SK's handheld footage), but those showed-up many other shots with faint but visible mold spots dancing right in the middle of the screen, some vertical streaks and many large dust specks.

There are a number of highly visible and nasty splices, which other viewers had reported, so it wasn't our projection print. Hopefully someone will scan the best available film elements into 8K or 12K for a definitive restoration. It will be interesting to see what the 4K UHD BD ends-up looking like in October.

Overall, most of the Nolan "unrestored" version looks good but sounds much better than other 70mm prints I've seen. The stargate and cosmic birth sequences have superb, saturated colour and are practically spotless. However, the cyan shift and some jarring splices take the whole experience down a notch.

ticket: https://tinyurl.com/ycngumsg

Regards,

Steve

[kelpzoidzl]

I'd like to see what Nolan says about the criticized "cyan shift" and what he says about any degradation of the original he had to work with.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:27:04 AM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> Oh well, it’s science fiction, the story need not pass the scientific method.

Having recently-watched 2001:aso again, I think it does pass evolutionary science as far as it tracing humanity's origins to Africa; where SK sets "The Dawn of Man." There's not much in those Southwest African deserts to cue a viewer that the monolith's intimidating material perfection has affected the neanderthals. SK couldn't show the primates building structures, for instance, since there's none of the available materials. The sudden development of a language would have been farcical. The shift from the primates living off shrubs to sitting-around with utilitarian bones and eating boar meat is abrupt, but it is a clear visual message.

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

I just think it was not necessary for some entity to come in and teach humans how to kill. Humans have always known how to kill. A racoon knows how to kill. A chimpanzee knows how to kill.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 1:38:50 AM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> I just think it was not necessary for some entity to come in and teach humans how to kill.

Again, I don't think that was SK's intended message, but most read "The Dawn of Man" sequence that way.

If it was the intended message by SK or ACC, agreed.

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

****************
OK, nice opinion, I have my opinion , people with opinions can get into endless discussions. I really don’t have time for an endless discussion right now, but it was nice to communicate with you up to this point.

[myriadsma...@yahoo.com]

Metaphors about metaphor. Something...

[Don Stockbauer]

PS: Steve, read the book , which is an explanation of the movie . What does Clarke say there? That the early hominids were trained to kill by the aliens so that they could avoid starvation.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:51:07 AM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> PS: Steve, read the book , which is an explanation of the movie . What does Clarke say there?

I last read ACC's 2001:aso book in high school, but I still have it here. The salient passage for me is, "Now he was master of the world, and he was not quite sure what to do next," which leads into the chapter, "Ascent of man."

ACC goes on to discuss how the use of tools like bones advanced the minds of the primates while helping them defend themselves against predators. It's a small chapter of only two-and-a-half pages, but it fits my take that the monolith's perfect material form intimidated the primates, initiating their journey of conquest over the world.

> That the early hominids were trained to kill by the aliens so that they could avoid starvation.

The ACC novel begins with the primates on the road to extinction due to drought, starvation and animal attacks (e.g. chapter "The leopard"). My takeaway is that the monolith intervened so that the primates could use available materials to conquer their fate.

Regards,

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

If you’re into science fiction, then there were monoliths. If you’re not into science fiction, then there weren’t.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> If you’re into science fiction, then there were monoliths. If you’re not into science fiction, then there weren’t.

I'm into science fiction, and am certain there were no monoliths before 1:4:9 ratio slabs began manifesting at Shepperton and Borehamwood studios in the 1960s.

Steve

[Don Stockbauer]

Whatever turns you on. Like seeing some kind of threat from me when I don’t even know who you are.

[Don Stockbauer]

Nor do you know who I am.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> Like seeing some kind of threat from me when I don’t even know who you are.

Can you cope with the fact that I do not believe you, Don? My opinion just can't be worth that much to you if I am as mentally ill as you claim me to be. You must have better things to do than fake your own harassment and injustice from some crazy person on an antiquated newsgroup (unless there's significant monetary compensation in play, perhaps).

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 5:09:42 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> Nor do you know who I am.

100% correct; you could be anybody. Therefore, you have nothing to complain about from me. No worries, I never expect honest statements, responses or accountability from someone of unverified identity.

Steve

[myriadsma...@yahoo.com]

Is it that you don't expect honest statements? Or that you expect dishonest statements?

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-4, myriadsma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 100% correct; you could be anybody. Therefore, you have nothing to complain about from me. No worries, I never expect honest statements, responses or accountability from someone of unverified identity.

> Is it that you don't expect honest statements? Or that you expect dishonest statements?

In the context of the Internet's ability to shield a person's identity for the purposes of deceit, both expectations are prudent.

Steve

[myriadsma...@yahoo.com]

Pardon, one of the two is not an expectation at all. It is other than expectation. But at least you see them as different. Most are not so discriminating, being for the most part unaware of the third state.

[s_o_...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:14:33 PM UTC-4, myriadsma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Is it that you don't expect honest statements? Or that you expect dishonest statements?
> >
> > In the context of the Internet's ability to shield a person's identity for the purposes of deceit, both expectations are prudent.
> >

> Pardon, one of the two is not an expectation at all.

Pardon ME, "both *states of expectation* are prudent." A negative state of expectation is not within a scope of expectation. My bad entirely.

> It is other than expectation. But at least you see them as different. Most are not so discriminating, being for the most part unaware of the third state.

Who must be PAYING you and Don to tag-team me on AMK for team Paulo Soares Figueiredo and team FBI? I can't believe you're taking this effort upon yourselves for free. C'mon...it's become so utterly transparent...you could at least spend time adding Kubrick news/discussion as chickenfeed.

Steve

[myriadsma...@yahoo.com]

But then, you're doing this for free, aren't you? I guess it follows if no one would do it for free, then you're getting paid for it. Who are YOU working for?