2001: A Space Odyssey -- should I watch it?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Both were formally cleared of any war crimes culpability and allowed to resume their careers in the late 1940s, but neither, as far as I'm aware, ever expressed any public regret, and both of them continued to be celebrated and promoted by cultural establishments worldwide throughout the rest of their lives, hence the use of their recordings of the Richard and Johann II Strauss pieces (no relation) in 2001. As with Wernher von Braun's rehabilitation, it seems that it didn't matter if you were once a pretty nasty Nazi: if you had something that the west wanted afterwards, the great and the good were prepared to look the other way.

Maybe it's hypocritical, maybe it's hypocritical the other way around, but I try to somewhat isolate the artist from his or her work, just to avoid all those moral dilemmas, because otherwise, I could never listen to any Michael Jackson song again. I couldn't watch any movie in which Harvey Weinstein was somehow involved, I couldn't watch any movie featuring Kevin Spacey. I couldn't look at any works of Leonardo da Vinci, knowing that he most likely had child sex slaves living with him (which, back then, was actually more or less considered normal...). The list goes on and on. Even the dirty work the Nazis did back then, did eventually have some medical merits. Should we discard this knowledge because of the source? I would say no, but I'm by no means sure about that answer.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I wouldn't watch it unless it IS in 70mm.. Seeing it in any other format IS a complete waste of time... The film format is at least half the show. Ya read me Dave?.

[Jim Cassedy]

Hey, Mark-- I'm running it this weekend. We couldn't get a 70mm print,
- - so we're running the 35mm one twice.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

It's possible they did not want to pay shiopping just for two shows...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Be sure to check out the pictures in the warehouse on this site from when I worked with a group in chicago to run it outdoors in Lincoln Park, in 70mm, on a 70 foot wide screen. Five - 4675's behind the screen, about 20 JBL surrounds on portable stands and ten Intersonics servo drive subwoovers. The low frequency was so loud it rattled the windows in a high rise almost a block away. NASA still uses groups of these subs to levitate test objects in wind tunnels. We did three nights of films and the turn outs were great. Did I mention we used a DP- 70? We also ran Ran, but in 35mm on my Simplex XL with the high speed intermittent... we also ran one of the surviving 70mm prints of Days Of Heaven.

[Brian D. Whitish]

Its my favorite movie of all time. Thankfully got to see it many times in 70mm at Seattle's Cinerama. So awesome on that big screen.

[Ed Gordon]

Its my favorite movie of all time. Thankfully got to see it many times in 70mm at Seattle's Cinerama. So awesome on that big screen.

That is where I first saw it as well. It does not look like the Cinerama will reopen. I wonder what will happen to that new 70mm print of Battle of the Bulge that Paul Allen bought.

[Dave Macaulay]

2001 is very long and there are some extended boring parts but I'd say watch it. Reel 9, the psychedelic stuff, really doesn't add much and the effects didn't age well. The ending makes zero sense. But worth seeing once for sure. As a teenager I saw it (glorious 70mm in a former Cinerama house) with an older (30s?) woman friend of the family. I was amazed, she did not like it at all.
Science wasn't ignored - I think the weightless scenes were well done and the movie doesn't use the nonsensical "artificial gravity" copout seen so commonly in SF movies and TV shows. And HAL singing is great.

[Paul Finn]

Absolutely watch it at least once! It would have even greater meaning today if you had seen it in the early release years and the memories return. I've been involved with 70mm showings in Detroit and see something new in it and have lasting impressions each time.

Paul Finn

[Allan Young]

I wouldn't watch it unless it IS in 70mm.. Seeing it in any other format IS a complete waste of time... The film format is at least half the show. Ya read me Dave?.

Have to agree with this. It's one of my favourite films, but I find it a complete snooze-fest in anything other than 70mm.

Its my favorite movie of all time. Thankfully got to see it many times in 70mm at Seattle's Cinerama. So awesome on that big screen.

Yeah, that was quite an experience. I flew out to Seattle to catch it during one of their Cinerama festivals. I went along to a matinée showing alone while the disinterested missus went shopping, then managed to persuade her to join me for a late night showing the same day. Thankfully she loved it.

I notice that that the DCP version currently circulating contains two versions with different sound tracks.
1) A "Digitally Restored" Audio Version,
2) "Original 1968 Audio" Version, For the 2018 restoration, supervised by Christopher Nolan.

- A friend who is running the DCP version of "MMI" next week sez he's been instructed to run the
"1968" audio version

I've heard the claim that Nolan used the "original 1968 audio" before, but it definitely isn't the same. I've seen original 1968 prints a few times, including a couple of screenings of a fairly battered print at the Bradford Cinerama theatre where the cannisters were marked "MGM Studio Copy". The original six-track sound had much more aggressive use of the surround track: the ape noises when the camera was positioned between the two warring groups of apes, the "blue ladies cashmere sweater has been found" line only coming from the rear and most notably the voice of HAL booming out from all of the speakers. I read somewhere that Nolan might have mistakenly used an inferior remix that was done in the '80s.

[Randy Stankey]

There is a cemetery along one of the back roads that I frequently travel and there is a plain, rectangular gravestone visible from the road as you drive by.

It says, "Bowman," and nothing else.

Many times, when I drive by, I say, "My God! It's full of stars!"

I often wonder whether the family of the deceased did that on purpose.

[Jim Cassedy]

So, film fans, here's a question for you: What, exactly IS the aspect ratio on the 35mm 2001 prints?
I ran a show this morning ("Scope") and I had at least a foot of black space between each side of the
picture and my masking. It's been at least 7 years or more since I ran this in 35mm, but I don't recall
the scope image being undersized. Whatsupwiththat?

[Ed Gordon]

• Aspect ratio 2.20 : 1

[Steve Guttag]

I believe the last time I ran it 35mm, it was 2.39:1 (full frame Scope). But it wouldn't surprise me if some one did anything with the 65mm negative that they got the bright idea of doing a 35mm print down and preserve the 2.2 aspect ratio.

[Allan Young]

It was definitely full 'Scope last time I saw a 35mm print around 30 years back.