Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

On the discussion of films in the previous few pages, I have to say, is there anything more subjective than film? It's amazing how we all get something often completely different out of the same picture and sound.

How great is that?

I've given up debating the quality of anything on the screen anymore because it's all so wildly varied how people respond.

To an extent. Ultimately, the common viewpoint is correct when it comes to films that have been tried over and over in the court of critical analysis (which means evidence from the film to support the argument has been thoroughly presented).

2001 is a great film that I happen to love. Contempt is a great film I didn't particularly care for. Objectively, they're both masterpieces; subjectively, they strike different reactions for me personally.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'd say most of what was wrong with AI, aside from the CE3K ending was Kubrick influenced

The ending to A.I. is all Kubrick, and horribly bleak.

[Hep]

Jeff,

I know nothing I say will convince you of the merits of 2001, but here is my take on the “beauty shots”...

When I watch 2001, much of the movie is entirely visceral in scope. The music and imagery combine to form a mesmerizing experience that does nothing but set a mood and induce a trance of sorts.

I liken it to watching a great music video. I don’t know if you are a fan of Sigur Ros, or Bjork, but some of their videos produce the exact same experience in me. Bjork’s “All is Full of Love” is a perfect example of how music and imagery can fuse together to produce a truly moving experience, even if you ignore what the lyrics are saying or what narrative the images contain.

For me those “beauty” scenes in 2001 don’t require subtext, or character development, or plot; to me they are what they are, and I find the experience beautiful - not unlike studying a painting (also considered boring by most).

I fully understand why some don’t share this perspective; many say that they have to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy 2001, myself included. Kubric may have failed to connect with you in the same way, but he did connect with me, and I thank him for it. What else can anyone ask of cinema in order to call it art?

[Jeff Kleist]

I wonder if someone started with all the original material, then cut their own version, what they would wind up with. I would bet the result would be seen more as heresy than art. Today's films often feature a lot more back-and-forth cutting, so re-cutting the film would not only reduce what you perceive as needless length, but probably cause this modern editing style to also creep in, hence why cries of heresy would arise.

The thing is, some of the story telling does require those long shots (how do tell a story with non-verbal apes?). Personally, the "feel" of 2001 is in those long shots. To me, some of those long beauty shoots of the space wheel with people working on two or three axis said to me, "THIS is engineering."

I would simply cut the existing movie down. By cutting the apes down to under 10 minutes, the acid trip to 30 seconds, and just shortening the cuts to a reasonable length, you probably have it down to sub-90min right there. Deep focus is great for space, just dont make me look at it for 15 minutes

I've read all four, and I would say that 2061 is the best one.

Ick, but not as crackheaded as 3001: An ID4 ending was. Both books were pretty much just a cashin

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I would simply cut the existing movie down. By cutting the apes down to under 10 minutes, the acid trip to 30 seconds, and just shortening the cuts to a reasonable length, you probably have it down to sub-90min right there. Deep focus is great for space, just dont make me look at it for 15 minutes

And lose the purpose of those choices. No thanks.

[Jeff Kleist]

And lose the purpose of those choices. No thanks.

And what was the purpose of those choices, that having you look at the pretty colors for 20 minutes accomplishes that 2 or even 5 would not? How is Frank Poole spinning in front of the camera for 5 minutes better than 1 or 15 or 10?

Be specfiic please Naps, bathroom breaks, making dinner, playing a round of solitaire and other solutions of the like are pre-disqualified as answers No "artistic intention" or anything like that. Specific and direct purpose

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

And what was the purpose of those choices, that having you look at the pretty colors for 20 minutes accomplishes that 2 or even 5 would not? How is Frank Poole spinning in front of the camera for 5 minutes better than 1 or 15 or 10?

The pretty colors last for < 10 minutes.
Ask a hundred film editors that question and you should get about a hundred different points of view on exactly how long that Frank Poole spinning scene should have been in order to maximize the setting and the tension. I suppose Ray Lovejoy might have thought that 5 was just about right back in 1968. When he was editing Aliens in 1986 (nominated for an Editing Oscar), perhaps he would have drawn a distinction between the needs of a sci-fi film like that, which was fast-paced action/horror, and 2001 which was never intended to be any of those things.

From Ebert's 1997 Great Movies review:

He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, “2001'' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Be specfiic please Naps, bathroom breaks, making dinner, playing a round of solitaire and other solutions of the like are pre-disqualified as answers No "artistic intention" or anything like that. Specific and direct purpose

What -- there's no room in your personal film rule book for specificity or purposefulness as they relate to artistic intent?

The answer to your question, I think, is verisimilitude -- the thing you said earlier that you preferred in art. Did you ever watch one of the repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope? Kubrick wasn't making Star Wars/Flash Gordon style sci-fi, he was testing how long or how far he could engage the viewer, attempting to recreate the feeling of being there -- in space -- and watching it transpire before you... how vast and indifferent and cold that environment truly is. Just be thankful that Kubrick did in fact cut reality down to movie length!

PS
I hope you don't feel we're antagonizing you with these discussions. Just say the word and we'll stop... though I rather like the debate. It's fascinating -- both views on the film are equally defensible in my opinion -- and it's very much like what it would be like traveling back in time and debating with myself 10 years ago. Really, thank you for your time.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by captveg

To an extent. Ultimately, the common viewpoint is correct when it comes to films that have been tried over and over in the court of critical analysis (which means evidence from the film to support the argument has been thoroughly presented).

Not sure you can rationalize it in a qualitative sense. For example, you could present two perfectly reasoned arguments supported with evidence: one that says 2001 is overlong, narratively incoherent and lacking in this and that and one just as valid saying it's fascinating, making intuitive leaps and presenting a unique and profound experience. Just depends who you are, I would say.

Personally I love it. If I were in a minority in thinking that, who cares? That can't affect the response it got from me.

At the end of the day there's no correct answer beyond "it appealed to these people and not to these people".

I'd say if a film is of positive significance to a person, if it moves them, proves to be food for thought, entertains for a few hours or whatever, then, in some sense it's done it's job. All the rest is an exercise in spinning words.

And, of course, this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

I've liked too many films against the "accepted wisdom" to think that the objective standard is worth much.

[Elvis Is Alive]

Originally Posted by captveg

I've read all four, and I would say that 2061 is the best one.

Agreed. For me personally, I rank the books in the following order:
2061
2010
2001
3001

As a lifelong fan of Arthur C. Clarke, I 've read every fiction novel he has written and most he has co-authored. I do think I would have enjoyed 2001 the movie more if I had not read the books first. I think it is visual stunning but is sorely lacking in plot development.

I think what Jeff is trying to say is the movie could have been so much more than it was.

I do not know why more of Clarke's novels have not been made into motion pictures. He has some fabulous works that in the right hands could be made into sci-fi blockbusters.

[Grubert]

Or what's the point of having three guys stare at each other for 6 full minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoYGWXRT7O0

instead of just getting on with the freaking shootout?

[Braktastic]

Hey, I hate to interrupt the Kubrick debate, but I have a *gasp* Blu-ray Disc question...

Jeff, has there been any indication from the House of Mouse that the dialogue error on the Pinocchio BD will be corrected?

[Jeff Kleist]

like traveling back in time and debating with myself 10 years ago. Really, thank you for your time[/quote]

No it's good

I think what Jeff is trying to say is the movie could have been so much more than it was.

What I'm saying is that you can have your stunning photography. Have pacing, narrative, dialog and character development cake too, and that it's all there in the book for the taking, and that the needless, but Clarke approved deviations from the plot actually slow it down. When the book, complete with long narrative segments is faster paced, and takes less time to read, though they share the same content than than the movie version. You really need to start asking yourself questions

I do not know why more of Clarke's novels have not been made into motion pictures. He has some fabulous works that in the right hands could be made into sci-fi blockbusters.

Rondeveu (yes I know there's a z, no cafffiene yet) with Rama supposedly was getting made with Sam Jackson, guess it died

Or what's the point of having three guys stare at each other for 6 full minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoYGWXRT7O0

instead of just getting on with the freaking shootout?

See though, things are happening there. It's a masterpiece of blocking. Everything is being done with the eyes an body language. There's no substance in a pod sloooowly floating, the acid trip, or the repeated shot of poole spinning, while that has plenty

Jeff, has there been any indication from the House of Mouse that the dialogue error on the Pinocchio BD will be corrected?

No, but I'll ask, and about a tradein program

[Elvis Is Alive]

I'd like to see the Rama series of books made into movies as well as Childhood's End, The Light of Other Days, The Trigger, and The Fountains of Paradise as one off stand alone movies. Maybe now that he has passed, we will see some of his works. *fingers crossed*

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

See though, things are happening there. It's a masterpiece of blocking. Everything is being done with the eyes an body language. There's no substance in a pod sloooowly floating, the acid trip, or the repeated shot of poole spinning, while that has plenty

I thought you didn't like The Good The Bad.... I remember that because I asked you about the blu-ray some time ago.
Anyways, please discuss this more
It's fun to read other people's opinion specifically about 2001

[captveg]

Well, Max pretty much nailed everything I was thinking. Nicely done!

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

Not sure you can rationalize it in a qualitative sense. For example, you could present two perfectly reasoned arguments supported with evidence: one that says 2001 is overlong, narratively incoherent and lacking in this and that and one just as valid saying it's fascinating, making intuitive leaps and presenting a unique and profound experience. Just depends who you are, I would say.

Personally I love it. If I were in a minority in thinking that, who cares? That can't affect the response it got from me.

At the end of the day there's no correct answer beyond "it appealed to these people and not to these people".

I'd say if a film is of positive significance to a person, if it moves them, proves to be food for thought, entertains for a few hours or whatever, then, in some sense it's done it's job. All the rest is an exercise in spinning words.

And, of course, this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

I've liked too many films against the "accepted wisdom" to think that the objective standard is worth much.

Again, I'm not talking about liking. I like a ton of films that really aren't that great by any film making standard. And while it's true all films have supporters and detractors, when the vast majority of analysis and criticism weighs in in one way or the other, especially over time as the film becomes aged, that viewpoint becomes the bar by which to compare/contrast to all future analysis/criticism. For example, The Godfather or Citizen Kane are nearly universally praised for a variety of reasons, backed up by film content evidence and analysis. In order to change their status of being (as best as can be ascertained in art) "objectively" great films one would need to present counter arguments, well supported by analysis of the film text, to equal that of the positive analysis so far put forth. In other words, the idea that The Godfather or Citizen Kane are films that are found wanting needs to be seriously backed up. 2001 is in that same echelon.

[MerrickG]

On another note,

Screenshot scientists are back at it. This time with the HD-DVD masterpiece Hot Fuzz. Although, most seem to think the bluray looks slightly better. Isnt that ironic?

The two best looking films on HD-DVD: Fot Fuzz and Transformers.

Both could end up looking better on bluray. :-)

Judging by the screenshots (flamesuit ON!) it does appear that the bluray preserves the grain better.

Of course, Ill withhold judgement until I see it in motion. I doubt I will be disappointed, though.

[Jeff Kleist]

I thought you didn't like The Good The Bad.... I remember that because I asked you about the blu-ray some time ago.

I'm not much for westerns, I prefer most of the Eastwood films in their original, samurai form However I'm not one to argue with good work when I see it.

Screenshot scientists are back at it. This time with the HD-DVD masterpiece Hot Fuzz. Although, most seem to think the bluray looks slightly better. Isnt that ironic?

Especially when, following Uni's current patterns it's recycled HD DVD What you're probably seeing is better technology, 2 years down the line rather than better file

In other words, the idea that The Godfather or Citizen Kane are films that are found wanting needs to be seriously backed up. 2001 is in that same echelon.

I don't think anyone would ever accuse either film of lacking narrative or character development Apples and oranges

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Rondeveu (yes I know there's a z, no cafffiene yet) with Rama supposedly was getting made with Sam Jackson, guess it died

I certainly don't want to step on your toes, but as I recall Rendezvous with Rama was long in development with Morgan Freeman.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

...
Especially when, following Uni's current patterns it's recycled HD DVD What you're probably seeing is better technology, 2 years down the line rather than better file
...

Is there any rhyme or reason to when Uni recycles the HD DVD transfer and when they make a new transfer for Blu-ray? Or any other studio?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Is there any rhyme or reason to when Uni recycles the HD DVD transfer and when they make a new transfer for Blu-ray? Or any other studio?

I don't see any particular pattern to their practice. If they recycled Hot Fuzz, so be it, as long as they didn't screw-up a great looking title.