I just watched 2001: a space odyssey

[Bryant Burnette 654]

YOUR completely wrong, once again, you continue to think its the critics job to decided if a movie is a classic. Thats a complete fallicy on your part. Movies exist long after their intial release, and critics move on to the next big thing, its the public that continues to embrace a film long after its release. I'm not talking art, its well known here that I dislike that too often used word, it and masterpiece are too easily assigned, without proper reason. Film is a craft, some transcend the craft into art, but most don't. As for your silly approach to suddenly who is a critic, and who isn't, I suppose we should all bend down and kiss Harold Blooms ass, don't think so. The public will continue to ignore the critics and make their own determination, thats why some films have cult following while the rest of the public may or may not care.

You were incorrect on Temple of Doom as you are here about the critic's response to Spielberg, Raiders was never dismissed as popcorn. People took Spielberg seriously rather quickly after Jaws and Close Encounters, and the critics were quick to pile on when the wunderkind fell on his behind with 1941. Then Raiders came along, and it was a film that caught people off guard because of the Sat. matinee title. You do wisely use the word economically in regards to Raiders in that there was an economical approach taken by Spielberg, he learned from his mistakes on 1941, something few directors seem capable of today. ET was never just a kids movie, it was certainly loved by the people, and the critics as well. Yes come awards time there was a backlash over its popularity, it is still the best movie Spielberg's made, he certainly thinks so, and its held up better than Ghandi. Its funny that in every case where a Spielberg film lost to another for best picture, the Spielberg film has ended up holding well far better than the winner. I wont disagree about 1941, but will still say, its has some fantastic moments, and is typical of the technical mastery SS shows in most films(how he lost it in LC I still don't get). Any I don't have time to debate point for point but we certainly will continue to disagree about A.I., it is IMHO the worst film of SS career, and his worst artistic failure. Just so you know, I've given AI more than 5 viewings in an effort for it to click, it never has.

Joey, are you capable of understanding that I'm talking about the difference between what is deemed to be art and what isn't? If you really think that it's the public that decides what is and isn't art, then you and I are living on different planets. Note that I'm not making any sort of value judgment as to which is better; I think it's far too common for the public to ignore art, and for critics to ignore pop culture. I try to come at it from both angles, because I find that any other approach is fairly hollow. I'm not advocating any sort of Bloomesque standard; I'm just saying that it's serious critical writers who define what is and what isn't accepted as art. Saying otherwise is like saying there are no actors whose names start with the letter F.

It's simply incorrect, also, to state that Spielberg was automatically seen as an artist. Sure, some critics were clued in right from the beginning -- Siskel and Ebert being two of them -- but a lot of others dismissed his movies as mere fluff. Remember, the major trend in film during the '70s was to celebrate only serious-minded film like Easy Rider or Taxi Driver or the like (not to say anything bad about those two classics). Jaws and Star Wars and their cinematic children were initially seen as being out of step with the times, despite their popularity, and so many terrible movies were made in their wake by poor imitators that Spielberg and Lucas were long damned for a lot of movies they'd had nothing whatsoever to do with. It wasn't until the '70s were a distant memory that people looked back on, say, Close Encounters and realized that it had just as strong a streak of individualism and dissatisfaction as Taxi Driver; it just went about pursuing those goals in a far different fashion.

You say film is a craft moreso than it is an art. I think that the vast majority of writers, directors, actors, and composers (not to mention cinematographers, editors, costume designers, and so forth) would disagree with that. Film is a craft and an art. Everything creative is art, at least in potential, because everything creative involves the creator trying to say something about the world he (or she) lives in. Most of the worst movies ever made at least had some kind of artistic aspiration. You seem to maybe think that this isn't so. What a sad world we'd live in if that were true. I want movies to make me feel something, strongly. I don't give a crispy crap what it makes me feel: if I laugh or cry or cheer or get scared or fall a little bit in love, it's all worthwhile to me. That's why I can find as much artistic merit (and as much entertainment) in A.I. or 2001 or Schindler's List or Vertigo as I do in Raiders of the Lost Ark or North By Northwest or a good Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I promise you, I'm no elitist. I go to the movies to be moved; it just so happens that sometimes, I like to figure out why I was moved.

What are you in it for, Joey? What's your cinematic worldview?

By the by, I like 1941 an awful lot, too. There's a lot that works really, really well in that movie. Not so much that I'm going to champion it as an unrecognized masterpiece, but I do think it's a better movie than a lot of people give it credit for.

well it certainly makes a point doesn't it Ted, not every film is for everybody. I don't remember was it Pauline Kael who disliked the film so much?

I distinctly remember Siskel and Ebert talking about Raiders come Oscar time they both felt it deserved best picture, they made an interesting point that it alone among the other 4 nominee's succeeded most in delivering its intent. Chariots of Fire is still a fine movie, it has held up well(period pieces often do) but not as well as Raiders. Both have held up slightly better than On Golden Pond, which feels somewhat dated, though I do not want to take anything away from the fantastic performances of that film. I still continue to think of Hepburn as a God among the rest of the actors.

Isn't it sad that a movie like Raiders basically never even had a chance at the Oscars? That's an interesting point about it having achieved its intent on a superior level; a very persuasive argument from the typically ahead-of-the-game Siskel/Ebert. Honestly, I don't know that there are very many movies in history that achieved their intent as capably as Raiders did. It's pretty close to flawless. (Joey, can we agree on that one as a masterpiece, at least?!?)

I agree that Chariots of Fire is a fine movie, but it just doesn't command the attention the way Raiders of the Lost Ark does. (I'll at least let Vangelis's Oscar slide; that's as memorable a theme as the Raiders march, though the rest of the score is comparatively in JW's dust.) Spielberg got turked again the following year (and had arguably been turked by Milos Forman and Woody Allen in previous years).

But of course, Hitchcock and Kubrick both failed to ever win one; so he's doing pretty well in comparison.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You sold a defective dvd?

I made it completely clear and explained what was wrong with it. Someone still bought it.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I just recently stumbled across a record of Arthur C. Clarke reading the book, http://thezombieastronaut.com/ , and there's just something about his stilted voice that oozes intelligence, the way he nonchalantly reads the descriptions of the outrageous imagery at the finale, that makes me almost like the book as much as the movie!

I like the novel, too (though I'd consign it to oblicion if it came down to a choice between novel and film). I like Clarke's 2010 even better, and if you like that one, you should absolutely give Childhood's End and Rendezvous With Rama a read. They're both excellent.

Which reminds me . . . I need to read more Arthur C. Clarke.

Thanks for posting that link! I haven't listened to any of it yet, but based on the description alone, that's quite a coup.

[Ollie 1,059]

You sold a defective dvd?

Which proves you can basically sell anything on eBay.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

You sold a defective dvd?

Which proves you can basically sell anything on eBay.

A friend of mine once bought a "genuine squirrel ass" on eBay for the princely sum of 1 cent. When he got it, it was a balled-up piece of paper. He laughed and laughed. Best penny he ever spent, he said.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What are you in it for, Joey? What's your cinematic worldview?

I like to go to the movies to be entertained first. I don't have a cinematic worldview, I just want to be entertained, and if I come away with something more so much the better. I don't think most movies are made with an artistic view, I think they are often made for the buck, that is the art they strive for.

I like a lot of different type movies but I have less faith in movies than I've had in years. The 2000's havent been kind to the movies.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Movies need to be entertaining and artistic. If a movie is only entertaining, it's a piece of meaningless crap. Like Bryant, I want to be moved by a movie, I want some kind of emotion evoked. If a movie is entirely artistic, it loses that meaning and fails to engage the audience. An equal balance of craft and art is needed to make a great film.

Those same principles can be applied to anything. I happen to feel the same way about writing, creative in particular. If a book is entertaining, that doesn't necessarily make it good. There has to be an artistic underlying message; a point to the whole creative work.

[indy4 155]

Nicely said!

[Ollie 1,059]

I like to go to the movies to be entertained first. I don't have a cinematic worldview, I just want to be entertained, and if I come away with something more so much the better. I don't think most movies are made with an artistic view, I think they are often made for the buck, that is the art they strive for.

I like a lot of different type movies but I have less faith in movies than I've had in years. The 2000's havent been kind to the movies.

I agree, movies are made for entertainment and I think most mainstream films are made for bucks. Or else we wouldn't have the same crap churned out year after year.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I like to go to the movies to be entertained first. I don't have a cinematic worldview, I just want to be entertained, and if I come away with something more so much the better. I don't think most movies are made with an artistic view, I think they are often made for the buck, that is the art they strive for.

I like a lot of different type movies but I have less faith in movies than I've had in years. The 2000's havent been kind to the movies.

I agree, movies are made for entertainment and I think most mainstream films are made for bucks. Or else we wouldn't have the same crap churned out year after year.

I don't agree. There have been great movies every single year. And in the vast majority of those cases, if you suggested to the people who made them that they'd been made with nothing but $$$ in mind, you'd probably get squinted at a lot.

And well, yes, of course movies are made for bucks. It's a business; if they weren't made with money in mind, we'd have had no more movies after about 1902. But there is nothing that says movies can't be made on an artistic level and with an eye toward earning a profit. Frequently, they fail from one angle or the other; but there are always exceptions.

And this isn't special. Most other art forms are different only in degree. The publishing industry is an, um, industry, and has been for quite some time. Music costs money to make, or at least to market. Painters expect to make money off of their art. Lots of people create art for free; lots more expect to be able to earn some money off of it. And why shouldn't they?

The problem is that there have been a lot of would-be blockbusters lately that have been disappointing in various ways. For every Iron Man there's been a Transformers. (I know some of you like that movie. But it could have been soooo much better than it was. And there's no acceptable excuse for it not having been. All the money in the world, and you can't come up with a better plotline than that?!? Sheesh.) Even though I enjoyed them both to a degree, both Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 were disappointments. X-Men 3, same deal. Superman Returns, same deal. There are others.

But there have been an awful lot of great movies, too.

Here's a rundown of some of the last ten years' memorable movies (and before some of you start complaining about individual movies you don't like, bear in mind that you're no one-person consensus; I even included a few movies I myself detest, which I'm well aware are cherished flicks regardless of how I feel about them):

2007:

No Country For Old Men

There Will Be Blood

Juno

Superbad

Knocked Up

Ratatouille

Grindhouse

Sweeney Todd

2006:

300

The Departed

Casino Royale

Children of Men

Pan's Labyrinth

Borat

Babel

Letters from Iwo Jima

United 93

2005:

Sin City

Batman Begins

V For Vendetta

Revenge of the Sith

King Kong

Brokeback Mountain

Walk the Line

The 40 Year Old Virgin

Munich

A History of Violence

Good Night, and Good Luck.

2004:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Kill Bill

Spider-Man 2

Million Dollar Baby

The Incredibles

The Passion of the Christ

The Aviator

Napoleon Dynamite

Team America

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Ray

I Heart Huckabees

Friday Night Lights

2003:

The Return of the King

Pirates of the Caribbean

Finding Nemo

Lost in Translation

X-Men 2

Mystic River

Master and Commander

Open Range

2002:

The Two Towers

Spider-Man

Attack of the Clones

Minority Report

Catch Me If You Can

Signs

Gangs of New York

28 Days Later

Chicago

8 Mile

The Hours

Solaris

Bubba Ho-Tep (heh, just kidding... mostly...)

2001:

The Fellowship of the Ring

Donnie Darko

Shrek

Moulin Rouge!

Monsters, Inc.

Black Hawk Down

A.I.

Spirited Away

The Royal Tenenbaums

2000:

Gladiator

Memento

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Almost Famous

Cast Away

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Unbreakable

Traffic

Erin Brockovich

Wonder Boy

1999:

The Matrix

Fight Club

American Beauty

Being John Malkovich

The Blair Witch Project

The Green Mile

Magnolia

Toy Story 2

Eyes Wide Shut

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

Office Space

The Talented Mr. Ripley

The Virgin Suicides

Man on the Moon

Election

The Iron Giant

October Sky

Sleepy Hollow

Now, that's a lot of awfully good movies. Some of them will be forgotten as the years go by; most of them probably won't be. And it's by no means a comprehensive list; I probably left off oodles of good stuff. Did I leave off Rushmore and Amelie? Looks like it. That was an error, but it's a pretty illustrative one.

And this is to say nothing of the numerous great tv projects that have aired in that same time period. Sure, tv ain't movies; but they're both films, and I don't make too big of a distinction.

So I don't know what you guys are talking about. There have been tons of movies that have been extremely well-loved, and not just by me. I don't think the industry is hurting at all. I think it's vital, ever-changing, and consistently fascinating.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2007:

No Country For Old Men (Coen Bros=not my taste)

There Will Be Blood (can't stand Daniel Day Lewis)

Juno

Superbad (vulgar unfunny)

Knocked Up (vulgar unfunny, this was a particular waste of time)

Ratatouille

Grindhouse (Tarintino's homage to films that are better than his)

Sweeney Todd

2006:

300 (colorful tasteless cotton candy)

The Departed

Casino Royale

Children of Men

Pan's Labyrinth

Borat

Babel

Letters from Iwo Jima

United 93 (good but its a fantasy, I prefer World Trade Center)

2005:

Sin City

Batman Begins (bale is good as wayne, terrible as the bat, nolan has no clue how to direct action)

V For Vendetta

Revenge of the Sith (the first hour is utter sh**, the 2nd half is slightly better)

King Kong

Brokeback Mountain (highly overrated film that is completely untrue to its characters)

Walk the Line

The 40 Year Old Virgin

Munich (Spielbergs snuff film, his worst film since Terminal)

A History of Violence

Good Night, and Good Luck.

2004:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Kill Bill

Spider-Man 2 (more 0's and 1's, and a whiney crybaby hero who can't squirt his stuff)

Million Dollar Baby

The Incredibles

The Passion of the Christ (a Jesus snuff film, completely unnecessary) the Passion of the Jew is better

The Aviator

Napoleon Dynamite (maybe the fun stuff happens after the 1st 45 min, which is where I turned it off)

Team America

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Ray (great central performance in an otherwise boring film)

I Heart Huckabees

Friday Night Lights (I love football, but this is just ok at best)

2003:

The Return of the King (great movie)

Pirates of the Caribbean (terrific fun)

Finding Nemo (never connected to me)

Lost in Translation

X-Men 2 (love it)

Mystic River

Master and Commander

Open Range

2002:

The Two Towers (long, boring, long, boring, nothing happens)

Spider-Man (0's and 1's, not a good movie)

Attack of the Clones (absolutely the worst Star Wars, and just a terrible work all around)

Minority Report

Catch Me If You Can

Signs (this is one of those films that polarizes people much like AI, except this wasn't a BO bomb)

Gangs of New York

28 Days Later (good, not great)

Chicago

8 Mile (surprised I liked a film about rap, as we all know you can't spell crap without rap)

The Hours

Solaris

Bubba Ho-Tep (heh, just kidding... mostly...)

2001:

The Fellowship of the Ring

Donnie Darko

Shrek

Moulin Rouge!

Monsters, Inc.

Black Hawk Down

A.I. (awful, terrible movie, Spielberg in a serious rut)

Spirited Away

The Royal Tenenbaums

2000:

Gladiator (particularly overrated)

Memento

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Almost Famous

Cast Away

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (more coen bros. ugh)

Unbreakable

Traffic

Erin Brockovich

Wonder Boy

1999:

The Matrix (super overrated)

Fight Club (one of my most despised films, terrible movie)

American Beauty

Being John Malkovich

The Blair Witch Project (what a piece of s***, absolutely horrible, every other word in the script was f***)

The Green Mile

Magnolia

Toy Story 2

Eyes Wide Shut (kubrick goes out with this, not the way to go)

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (great homage to the recent big musicals)

Office Space

The Talented Mr. Ripley (interesting, bizarre, but not great)

The Virgin Suicides

Man on the Moon (too much Jim Carrey)

Election

The Iron Giant

October Sky

Sleepy Hollow (moody beautiful but not great)

Now, that's a lot of awfully good movies. Some of them will be forgotten as the years go by; most of them probably won't be. And it's by no means a comprehensive list; I probably left off oodles of good stuff. Did I leave off Rushmore and Amelie? Looks like it. That was an error, but it's a pretty illustrative one.

And this is to say nothing of the numerous great tv projects that have aired in that same time period. Sure, tv ain't movies; but they're both films, and I don't make too big of a distinction.

So I don't know what you guys are talking about. There have been tons of movies that have been extremely well-loved, and not just by me. I don't think the industry is hurting at all. I think it's vital, ever-changing, and consistently fascinating.

Like I said the 2000's hasn't been kind, its the least of the last 4 decades of filmmaking. I was sympathetic until I discovered AOTC on the list, that is simply not a good movie on any level, terrible directing, acting, script, flat effects, JW's worst score of the decade...

[tpigeon 3]

Wait... so United 93 is a fantasy, but you like World Trade Center? You're losing points, Joe. Your comments about each film illuminate nothing about them. You seem only to like decent action adventures and the occasional comedy. I guess if that's all you like, then yes, the 2000's are cinematically bankrupt... for you. For true movie lovers, this is the best time to watch movies. I've seen many great movies in the last years, large and small, and in all languages.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Wait... so United 93 is a fantasy, but you like World Trade Center? You're losing points, Joe. Your comments about each film illuminate nothing about them. You seem only to like decent action adventures and the occasional comedy. I guess if that's all you like, then yes, the 2000's are cinematically bankrupt... for you. For true movie lovers, this is the best time to watch movies. I've seen many great movies in the last years, large and small, and in all languages.

Ted

what happened on that plane isn't really known Ted, there were no survivors, no one to tell the story

how you can say its not a fantasy then is beyond me. World Trade Center connected better to me, it was more of a true story, we know its based on the survivors tale, unlike United 93 which is based on a few phone calls, no one knows what went on in that aircraft.

if you don't like my little comments, so what, they are just tiny comments about the film. I don't have time to take the list apart film by film and analyze each one.

Can you say the 2000's has been a great decade for film, I can't. I can't say I've seen many great films, I've seen some, but the 9 years of the 00's hasn't been as good as the 90's, 80's or 70's, instead of making comments about me, why don't you stick to the argument, and argue against my statement.

[tpigeon 3]

Wait... so United 93 is a fantasy, but you like World Trade Center? You're losing points, Joe. Your comments about each film illuminate nothing about them. You seem only to like decent action adventures and the occasional comedy. I guess if that's all you like, then yes, the 2000's are cinematically bankrupt... for you. For true movie lovers, this is the best time to watch movies. I've seen many great movies in the last years, large and small, and in all languages.

Ted

what happened on that plane isn't really known Ted, there were no survivors, no one to tell the story

how you can say its not a fantasy then is beyond me. World Trade Center connected better to me, it was more of a true story, we know its based on the survivors tale, unlike United 93 which is based on a few phone calls, no one knows what went on in that aircraft.

if you don't like my little comments, so what, they are just tiny comments about the film. I don't have time to take the list apart film by film and analyze each one.

Can you say the 2000's has been a great decade for film, I can't. I can't say I've seen many great films, I've seen some, but the 9 years of the 00's hasn't been as good as the 90's, 80's or 70's, instead of making comments about me, why don't you stick to the argument, and argue against my statement.

World Trade Center was manipulative and exploitive. Just because it was based on survivor accounts does not make it any more or less plausible than something that's not. Like the old saying goes, it's not so much about what a film is about, but how it is about it. And United 93 struck me as a much more genuine movie.

I don't have a problem with small comments, Joe. It's your cut and dry tone that prompts my responses. That you leave no room for a view other than your own is the problem, not that you have opinions and views.

And yes, I can say that the 2000's until this point have been great for movies. But then again, the points made in these conversations ultimately say more about who makes them than they do about movies themselves. I recognize that I have an optimistic attitude about movies, but I have seen around 80 or more theatrical releases each years since 2001, and I can confidently say that I've seen plenty of great filmmaking.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

well I'm glad you have cause many of us haven't. I'm grateful for the abundance of great movies in the past. When I do purchase a dvd it seems to be an older film, (got Lawrence of Arabia for 4.99 recently brand new)

World Trade Center was manipulative, not exploitive (thats United 93 IMHO, lets face it 911 is an American Tragedy that we each view differently). Personally I like movies that are manipulative to an extent ( but not like Fight club). I think there are still great movies being made, but few in porportion these days.

[Morlock 11]

I personally think that, in time, the 2000's are gonna be viewed quite positively. Negatively in trends, certainly (but every decade has had it's negative trends, and most have had their share of flowering, too). But, on the whole, I just don't buy that there are significantly fewer great films being made now. More crap, certainly, more offensive crap, maybe. But there's so much good out there.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

well one thing about it BB has much more opportunity to see movies than I have.

[Morlock 11]

As do, I suspect, myself and Ted. And it is reversed for the 80's. I have not seen nearly as many 80's movies as you have, which may be the principle reason that I find the 80's to be the worst decade for movies ever. Though, I think that if I were to find the 80's more palatable, I'd probably find them in different films than you would (You will never convince me that Porky's is a classic)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

As do, I suspect, myself and Ted. And it is reversed for the 80's. I have not seen nearly as many 80's movies as you have, which may be the principle reason that I find the 80's to be the worst decade for movies ever. Though, I think that if I were to find the 80's more palatable, I'd probably find them in different films than you would (You will never convince me that Porky's is a classic)

nor would I try. btw the 80's blows the 90's and 00's away.

[Morlock 11]

I don't see it. But at least we each have a decade we love, at the end of the day.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't see it. But at least we each have a decade we love, at the end of the day.

I'd probably put the 70's and 80's as equals, then the 90's

then the 00's.

but I think Porky's is better than say Superbad, which is a great title for a review of that movie.

[A24 4,338]

Guys, it's '80s and not 80's.

Alex - who is still waiting for the standout sci-fi movie of this decade.

[Morlock 11]

What was the winner for the '90s or '70s?

[A24 4,338]

What was the winner for the '90s or '70s?

I'm not sure about the 1970s anymore. At the time, it definitely was Star Wars but now I think it's A Clockwork Orange, simply because today I enjoy this film more. Gattaca is my pick for the 90s.

Alex

[JoeinAR 1,949]

how is A clockwork Orange science fiction, isn't that the way Great Britian is?

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

This decade (though I admittedly haven't seen much), it would be Sunshine for me so far. Not one of the great masterpieces, perhaps, but a damn fine movie.

[A24 4,338]

how is A clockwork Orange science fiction ... ?

A Clockwork Orange belongs to the sci-fi category that depicts a futuristic dystopian society.

Alex - who thinks Sunshine and The Fountain were both big disappointments

[Quintus 5,399]

how is A clockwork Orange science fiction, isn't that the way Great Britian is?

Great Britain was like that, 10 years ago. Not now though, not since the film was unbanned. Everything returned to normal after the film was made legally available. Funny really, how things soon return to normal.

[tpigeon 3]

how is A clockwork Orange science fiction ... ?

A Clockwork Orange belongs to the sci-fi category that depicts a futuristic dystopian society.

Alex - who thinks Sunshine and The Fountain were both big disappointments

I love Sunshine. Not so much the latter.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I liked the first half of Sunshine as much as I didn't like the 2nd half overall a film I would not recommend. A 2001 wannabee

I was joking about A ClockWork Orange..

and I agree with it being science fiction to an extent, even moreso than Star Wars, but as a film itself its less than Star Wars.

[tpigeon 3]

Sunshine is not a 2001 wannabe!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sunshine is not a 2001 wannabe!

I took it that way, so did the people I saw it with.

the 2nd half of the movie is a convoluted mess.

[Quintus 5,399]

I was joking about A ClockWork Orange..

Argh you broke the cardinal rule!

I think we all realised you were not being serious Joe.

Oh well, I guess your as human as the rest of us at the end of the day. But you did just shatter my general picture of you.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I figured you did, not so sure about Alex.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Like I said the 2000's hasn't been kind, its the least of the last 4 decades of filmmaking. I was sympathetic until I discovered AOTC on the list, that is simply not a good movie on any level, terrible directing, acting, script, flat effects, JW's worst score of the decade...

Joey, a lot of people disagree with you on this score. As I think the list I posted demonstrates more than capably, there have been numerous notable movies during the course of the decade. (I'm not making a case for all of them as being great -- certainly not Attack of the Clones, though it is still a well-loved movie for a lot of people). Those are (some of) the movies that people will remember years from now, not the lousy ones. It's the good stuff that people will use as the standard by which to judge the decade, not the bad. It's like that for every decade.

I don't know if I think the '00s are better than the '90s or the '80s, but if they aren't, it's not a big enough miss to talk about the industry as suffering. Because it isn't. At all.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't think AOTC is well loved at all, only a few die hard prequel fans perhaps, but no one else.

[Quintus 5,399]

I never tire of calling AOTC a pile of sh*te.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I hardly ever think about that film anymore.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Looks like Nolan's "unrestored" version will already be obsolete soon.

[A24 4,338]

We need a separate thread for each movie!

[Quintus 5,399]

I just watched Driving Miss Daisy

[crocodile 8,017]

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Looks like Nolan's "unrestored" version will already be obsolete soon.

Well.. no. 8K is lower resolution than 70mm film. That can be as much as 14K. IMAX prints go even beyond that (up to 18K).

 

The 8K scan was a basis for the new UHD release that came out in October so it must be the same thing then. Even though the press release mentions this release was somehow based of off the work that Nolan did for the "unrestored version" it is probably not quite the case. When I expressed my confusion on Facebook and Mike Matessino decided to weigh in:

 

Quote

 

Here's the way to think about it: The 4K UHD restoration was done in the way that Warner would normally do a release for home video and the result in my opinion, based on seeing it in laser IMAX at the Chinese Theater in August, is stunning. The work was done from the original camera negative (OCN) and the color timing seemed perfect to my eye and the whole thing was clean and stabile. The theatrical release earlier this year was spearheaded by Christopher Nolan and was called "unrestored" because it used an existing 65mm printing element (likely an interpositive, so a couple of generations away from the OCN) and prints were made with no adjustments (so splices, damage, dirt, etc. remained, along with however the color had been affected over the years since the element was made) and there was no digital step involved at all. One thing pretty much has nothing to do with the other. That was something Mr. Nolan wanted to do this as a way of giving audiences a totally film-based experience and WB did pretty well with it considering the odd way it was marketed.

 

 

EDIT: Oh and I've just found more information from studio's technical brief:

 

Quote

In honor of the 50th Anniversary of Stanley Kubrick’s acclaimed film 2001: A Space Odyssey Warner Bros. completed extensive film work, both photochemically and digitally, in order to create the closest representation to date of the film’s original theatrical release. Warner Bros. started off the 50th Anniversary with brand new “unrestored” 70mm film prints that debuted at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival before playing in theaters around the world. The newly remastered Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray with HDR built upon the work done for the new 70mm prints, including brand new scans of the original 65mm film negative.

 

Photochemical Preparation

Preparing the original 65mm negative for scanning involved a great deal of work, much of which was accomplished by Vince Roth, then supervisor of large format optical at Pacific Title, in 1999. Roth prepared the negative for preservation by removing past repairs to the film, which included tape repairs for broken perforations and tears across the image. This work included tape supports added by MGM to the original splices to insure they did not break open while printing. Roth carefully removed years of dirt, oil and chemicals from the surface of the negative. He determined the dates of when replacement sections were cut into the negative to determine if earlier generation elements existed which would yield the best quality replacement footage.

Once the camera negative was repaired and cleaned, Warner Bros. created a 70mm answer print using the original MGM timing lights and making slight adjustments to compensate for fading of the negative and changes in modern film print stock. The 1999 answer print – which served as the basis for the 2018 “unrestored” film prints and the color reference for the 2018 video master – was completed under the direction of Leon Vitali, assistant to Stanley Kubrick who supervised color timing of prints for Kubrick for a period of 20 years, and Ned Price, Vice President of Restoration at Warner Bros., at CFI Laboratories. A 35mm optical reduction interpositive was created from the 65mm negative – as a 35mm print was necessary in order for Warner Bros. to scan for home video elements (including the DVD remastered box set in 2000 and the Blu-ray in 2007).

 

Digital Scans and Color-timing

The new 2018 video masters were achieved by scanning the 65mm original negative in 8K-resolution and utilizing top-of-the-line color correction software, allowing technicians to follow natural color and luminance curves (characteristics) of film print stock. Color reference in the DI suite was provided by the 1999 70mm answer print from the original camera negative and a 70mm check print from a new dupe negative. Vince Roth (now the Lab Technical director at Fotokem) completed the dupe and check print for the 2018 color grade.

 

Christopher Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema (who both worked extensively with large film formats) oversaw the new 70mm film prints and were brought in to consult on the creation of new video masters to match the 70mm reference prints. These 2018 video masters were completed under the direction of Leon Vitali and Ned Price. Color grading of the master was completed by Janet Wilson of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging – who previously worked with Leon on HD mastering of Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket and Lolita.

 

 

Karol

[A24 4,338]

My guess is that the HD (Blu-ray) and the 4K blu-ray version originate from the same old 2007 master.

[crocodile 8,017]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

My guess is that the HD (Blu-ray) and the 4K blu-ray originate from the same old 2007 master.

Nope (from the same article I linked above).

 

Quote

 

Comparison to Previous Home Entertainment Releases

 

There will be noticeable differences between the 2018 release and previous home entertainment releases. The last Blu-ray release was mastered at Motion Picture Imaging in 2007 from a 2k scan of a 35mm optical reduction from the 65mm negative (that was made in 1999). This extra step was required as the scans needed to be made from a 35mm film element. Unfortunately, the 35mm reduction is not as sharp as the 65mm negative and the optical reduction process induced cross color contamination, which resulted in some compromises to color in order to balance the image. There was compressed picture detail in low light areas and also shading errors inherent in the optical reduction – luminance and color dropped off on the sides of the image – which resulted in an uneven field of color across the full image. Overall, it limited the range of the color grade of the 2007 video master.

 

Also, the 2018 release contains correct picture aspect ratio as it was scanned directly from the 65mm original negative which is spherical (flat) versus anamorphic (scope). The 35mm anamorphic (scope) reduction that was scanned for the 2000 and 2007 releases contained a little more information on the left and right of the frame then was intended for 2.2 70mm projection aspect ratio. Also, the optical scope reduction added a slight amount of linear image distortion, which is not present in the 65mm spherical camera negative.

 

While the 2007 work utilized the best technology available at the time, the 2018 release takes advantage of higher resolution and higher bit-depth scans. The color is based on the original MGM timing lights and the technological capabilities of the color software have improved greatly. The same team has put together the new release (almost 20 years after from the previous restoration) and Leon Vitale has reviewed and approved both the 4K UHD and Blu-ray check disks.

 

Audiences may be most familiar with previous home video releases of 2001: A Space Odyssey and may be struck by some of the differences. However, the newly-remastered version has been scanned and timed to directly match the original film release, rather than the previous home video master. The new HD Blu-ray and 4K UHD Blu-ray will have more detail, greater color depth, better color accuracy in terms of matching Stanley Kubrick’s original 1968 theatrical release. As digital technology continues to evolve, it becomes more and more possible to recreate the experience of viewing a film print in your own home.

 

 

Karol

 

 

[A24 4,338]

Must ... buy ... 4K ... version. 

[crocodile 8,017]

You might as well just buy the 4K version as it includes both UHD and standard Blu-ray (which is also remastered).

 

Karol

[A24 4,338]

I have the standard Blu-ray. And the DVD (let the bidding begin!).

[crocodile 8,017]

I had 3 copies of the DVD and a Blu-ray. Gave one DVD away, the other one is somewhere back home in Poland and the third one I sold. The Blu-ray is gone too.

 

Karol

[John 2,032]

I have the standard Blu-ray and preordered the 4K set. Pissed that it was pushed back to a 12/18 release date. Oh well.

 

I wonder if we'll get UHD home releases of other Kubrick films sometime soon. I'd love to see The Shining and A Clockwork Orange get 4K Blu-ray releases.

[A24 4,338]

Pre-ordered? It's not available yet?

 

 

 

Or are you talking about the Nolan version?