PDA

View Full Version : BA in 2001



Wiley
2001-Oct-24, 06:50 PM
Well, folks, I just got a brand new DVD player and to celebrate I watched the 2001: A Space Odyssey. Having not seen the widesreen version of 2001 in about ten years, I thought this would be good way to break in the new player.

When watching the space scenes, all I could think is "the stars are twinkling". There are other examples of BA in 2001, e.g. the dust scattering during the moon landing, but these would very difficult to do "correctly". Since non-twinkling stars are just as easy to create as twinkling ones, this BA irked me.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the film. This widescreen and digitally restored version is a definite must-see.

And it cost $1.78 to make a video phone call from the space station back to earth. I wonder which calling plan Heywood uses?

SeanF
2001-Oct-24, 07:18 PM
On 2001-10-24 14:50, Wiley wrote:
Well, folks, I just got a brand new DVD player and to celebrate I watched the 2001: A Space Odyssey. Having not seen the widesreen version of 2001 in about ten years, I thought this would be good way to break in the new player.

When watching the space scenes, all I could think is "the stars are twinkling". There are other examples of BA in 2001, e.g. the dust scattering during the moon landing, but these would very difficult to do "correctly". Since non-twinkling stars are just as easy to create as twinkling ones, this BA irked me.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the film. This widescreen and digitally restored version is a definite must-see.

And it cost $1.78 to make a video phone call from the space station back to earth. I wonder which calling plan Heywood uses?


I should maybe get my copy of 2001 out and watch it before I post this, but the "twinkling" of the stars you're seeing may be an artifact of the TV screen . . . as the image moves slightly up and/or down, the images of the stars pass through the spaces between the TV's scan lines and can seem to blink on and off . . . could this be what you saw?

Wiley
2001-Oct-24, 07:32 PM
On 2001-10-24 15:18, SeanF wrote:
I should maybe get my copy of 2001 out and watch it before I post this, but the "twinkling" of the stars you're seeing may be an artifact of the TV screen . . . as the image moves slightly up and/or down, the images of the stars pass through the spaces between the TV's scan lines and can seem to blink on and off . . . could this be what you saw?



Could be, but I doubt it. The stars twinkled even during stationary scenes. In the last chapter Jupiter & Beyond the Infinite (I think that's the title.) the stars did atwinkle.

During the main voyage the stars did move, but barely - an example of GA by which I was heartened. These twinkles are significant and seem to more than just an artifact of the TV.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 10:02 PM
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif
<font size=-1 color=green>I have never seen 2001. **Covers face with hands in shame**</font>
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif

Wiley
2001-Oct-24, 10:48 PM
On 2001-10-24 18:02, Mr. X wrote:
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif
<font size=-1 color=green>I have never seen 2001. **Covers face with hands in shame**</font>
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif


And well you should!

Viewing recommendations:
1.) Get the widescreen version. The pan & scan captures only about half the picture and visual impact is significantly reduced. Idealy this film should be seen in a theatre.

2.) Be patient. This is a film that takes its time.

3.) Be patient. Don't expect to get everything first time around. Many things are hinted at by cuts. This is film that requires the viewer to actually think.

4.) If you don't want to think too hard, read the book first. Things which are vaguely suggested in the film are explicity mentioned in the book.

Donnie B.
2001-Oct-25, 12:31 AM
Idealy this film should be seen in a theatre.


Ideally, this film should be seen in a Cinerama theater. Three projectors, wraparound screen. Awesome. But almost impossible these days. For a long time there were no Cinerama screens left in the world, but I think I read about someplace they'd revived it. "2001" was, of course, the first film they ran.



If you don't want to think too hard, read the book first. Things which are vaguely suggested in the film are explicity mentioned in the book.


To be fair, the book and movie are two quite different things. Clarke's book is classic, golden-age-type science fiction. It's really an expansion of a much earlier short story called "The Sentinel". The film is, almost entirely, Kubrick's vision, and an altogether different experience.

Both are very much worthwhile.

Oh, PS: My recollection of the theater experience is that the stars did *not* twinkle. I also remember them as being relatively faint and small (not the Mount Wilson light show you see in most SF). Kubrick was quite adamant (anal, even) that the science of the film be accurate, and that's something he would not have overlooked. Capping a film to video is a lossy process. That's probably where the "twinkle" errors crept in.

Iain Lambert
2001-Oct-25, 09:28 AM
I saw this on 70mm last year, and I can confirm that I didn't notice any twinkling of stars - I suspect its a limitation of the DVD resolution.

Truly great film...

David Hall
2001-Oct-25, 11:04 AM
What a coinkidink. I just finished reading 2001 a couple of days ago. It was quite refreshing to read it again after so long. It makes me want to go out and watch the movie again. Unfortunately, my video store doesn't have it on DVD (Has 2010 though). I may have to just watch it on tape, but then I have to deal with Japanese subtitles.

While reading, I was especially observant of the times Clarke mentioned the stars. He quite clearly mentions several times how the glare from the Earth/Moon/etc. washes out the stars and makes them invisible. It was like he was anticipating the Moon hoax argument. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Of course, he also got several things wrong too. I really liked the line where he mentions that the moon was "without a doubt" never part of the Earth.

Donnie B.
2001-Oct-25, 12:42 PM
On 2001-10-25 07:04, David Hall wrote:
Of course, he also got several things wrong too. I really liked the line where he mentions that the moon was "without a doubt" never part of the Earth.


I imagine he was saying that to dismiss the old "budding" theory, which proposed that the moon had someehow reared up out of the Pacific basin and been flung off into orbit.

That theory predated the modern understanding of plate tectonics, which shows that the Pacific is not a primordial feature of the earth. It also ignored some serious problems... like gravity.

Of course, Clarke wrote before the currently-accepted impact origin theory was even proposed, at least in its current form. I doubt whether he had even considered a Mars-sized impactor. He also didn't have the benefit of the lunar sample analyses. He's a smart guy, but he couldn't think of everything!

Donnie B.
2001-Oct-25, 12:54 PM
I did a little further research into Cinerama.

First, there are two theaters still showing Cinerama movies, one in the UK and one in Seattle. A third in Dayton, Ohio, has the equipment but is not showing Cinerama movies anymore.

Second, "2001" was not a true Cinerama movie. It was shot in 70mm and was printed in a way that allowed it to be shown on the giant, curved Cinerama screens without (much) distortion, but it wasn't a real, three-eye Cinerama feature.

*Sigh* all our youthful, idealistic notions must eventually meet the cold hard light of reality, I guess...

I'm old enough, and was lucky enough, to see "2001" twice on the Cinerama screen -- but was a bit too young to fully understand what I was seeing. Assuming I do even now /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Trivia: the original run of "2001" was not as successful as the studio had hoped, and it was pulled out of Cinerama theaters early to make way for... gulp... "Ice Station Zebra". Stop, Rock... my mind is going...

Azpod
2001-Oct-25, 06:23 PM
On 2001-10-24 18:48, Wiley wrote:


On 2001-10-24 18:02, Mr. X wrote:
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif
<font size=-1 color=green>I have never seen 2001. **Covers face with hands in shame**</font>
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif


And well you should!

Viewing recommendations:

*snip*

4.) If you don't want to think too hard, read the book first. Things which are vaguely suggested in the film are explicity mentioned in the book.


No... if you don't want to have your brain leaking out of your ears, read the book first! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif It's a short book and a great read, so it's worth it. Then watch the movie; the movie really adds to the book! (As strange as that may be!)

_________________
Just my two neurons worth,
Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: azpod on 2001-10-25 19:07 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-25, 06:35 PM
Unfortunately, I've already returned the 2001 DVD back to the rental store. It shall be a few days before I can rent it again and check whether its the TV or the DVD that added the twinkle.

I've seen the movie only once on the big screen. The Fox theatre in Atlanta has a summer movie series where the run many classic movies. About ten years ago they ran 2001 and that was quite a bit more impressive than the little TV version I had previously seen. I don't recall the stars twinkling, but I was not as hip to bad astronomy as I am now.

StarMan
2001-Oct-26, 06:53 AM
4.) If you don't want to think too hard, read the book first. Things which are vaguely suggested in the film are explicity mentioned in the book.


No... if you don't want to have your brain leaking out of your ears, read the book first! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif It's a short book and a great read, so it's worth it. Then watch the movie; the movie really adds to the book! (As strange as that may be!)


Yes!

Read the book!
I guess it is my favourite of all books...
2010 is also nice even if it follows the movie 2001 and not the book.

Read both! I do it again and again and again...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

David Hall
2001-Oct-26, 11:42 AM
Well, luckily it turned out I was wrong about my video store. They DO have copies of 2001. They just had them filed under a special Kubrick section instead of with the standard SciFi stuff.

So I've just scanned through the DVD and just as Wiley said, the stars are twinkling. It could still be a DVD artifact, but I don't think so. Everything else is crystal clear without a hint of flicker, and all the stars seem to be doing it, even the very bright ones fade in and out. There just doesn't seem to be anything to make me believe that this is the case.

I also checked it on my computer's DVD drive and saw the same flicker, although the stars were much dimmer and harder to see on my computer screen. So it would probably take someone with a clean tape copy or chance to see it in a theater to really tell for sure, but I think it probably was made that way.

Of course, even this and other minor errors such as the fact that the stars move (albeit slowly) don't really distract from it. It is definitely one of the greatest SF movies ever made, and the only one that even comes close to accurately depicting space travel. It's hard to believe that such a marvel is as old as I am. I'm looking forward to relaxing and watching it in my leisure as soon as I have time.

David Hall
2001-Oct-26, 11:58 AM
No... if you don't want to have your brain leaking out of your ears, read the book first! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif It's a short book and a great read, so it's worth it. Then watch the movie; the movie really adds to the book! (As strange as that may be!)


Yes!

Read the book!
I guess it is my favourite of all books...
2010 is also nice even if it follows the movie 2001 and not the book.

Read both! I do it again and again and again...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif


My opinion is that you should wait on the book until after you've seen the movie. Why? So you can challenge yourself to see what you can understand. As said above, many things are only hinted at in the movie, so it's like a puzzle waiting to be unravelled. Reading the book first is a little like peeking at your Christmas presents. It ruins the surprise. After puzzling through it a couple of times, you can then go back and see what you've missed by reading the book.

I say this because I only got to really sit down and see the movie after I had already read the book. And though it was still a marvellous visual feast, it didn't hold any real mystery for me because I already knew what was going on.

So I say enjoy the movie first for the wonder and initial impact, then read the book to truly absorb it.

Just my opinion.

Wiley
2001-Oct-26, 03:45 PM
On 2001-10-26 07:42, David Hall wrote:

So I've just scanned through the DVD and just as Wiley said, the stars are twinkling. It could still be a DVD artifact, but I don't think so. Everything else is crystal clear without a hint of flicker, and all the stars seem to be doing it, even the very bright ones fade in and out. There just doesn't seem to be anything to make me believe that this is the case.

I also checked it on my computer's DVD drive and saw the same flicker, although the stars were much dimmer and harder to see on my computer screen. So it would probably take someone with a clean tape copy or chance to see it in a theater to really tell for sure, but I think it probably was made that way.



I am vindicated!

(Wiley now dances about the room celebrating. The stars twinkle; he is not insane. Well, at least he's not seeing things and refering to himself in the third person.)

Ravi Pinjala
2001-Oct-28, 10:10 PM
I just watched the DVD. There were a few things, but overall, it wasnt such a bad movie.

Ravi Pinjala
2001-Oct-28, 11:43 PM
Woohoo! First post! And here I am, padding my post count. *sniff* Brings back memories. Okay, i'll stop now.

The Rat
2001-Oct-29, 01:38 AM
On 2001-10-25 08:54, Donnie B. wrote:
Trivia: the original run of "2001" was not as successful as the studio had hoped, and it was pulled out of Cinerama theaters early to make way for... gulp... "Ice Station Zebra". Stop, Rock... my mind is going...


Not here in Toronto! It ran on and on and on at the dear departed Glendale Theatre, our only Cinerama screen. When I first saw it there I remember seeing the ads in the lobby for Ice Station Zebra and thinking 'Cool poster'. But I don't think it ever got there because 2001 refused to leave. In the book 'The Making of 2001' (somewhere in my basement) it is mentioned that the Toronto showing spanned several Apollo flights. I also saw it the first time it was ever shown at the Ontario Place Cinesphere, the world's first Imax theatre. Now that was neat.

Donnie B.
2001-Oct-30, 01:05 AM
Good for Toronto! I always knew Canadians had better taste than their southern cousins.

Now if I could just get over this fit of IMAX envy...

The Rat
2001-Nov-03, 09:05 PM
Now if I could just get over this fit of IMAX envy...


C'mon, you've gotta have one in Boston somewhere. We've got three. (blush)

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-04, 12:19 AM
On 2001-11-03 16:05, The Rat wrote:


Now if I could just get over this fit of IMAX envy...


C'mon, you've gotta have one in Boston somewhere. We've got three. (blush)



Well, the Museum of Science has an Omni theater, which may be similar to IMAX. But I've never heard of it showing 2001. I guess I should check their home page once in a while... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-03 19:21 ]</font>