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

[Jeff Kleist]

Ambiguity is fine, but there's a fine line between pretentious and artistic, and when there is literally an answer sitting in front of you from the creator that tells exactly what he meant, just go with it

As far as unresolved cliffhangers go, there was no ambiguity intended. They just got cut off before they could finish.

You want to get me something for Xmas, get me $50 million to remake 2001 based on the book. You're going to love it A tight 90 minutes full of character development, dialog and plot, with nigh-zero deviation from the source material.

And turning away to another horror show, apparently these poptarts are up for Fili and Kili in The Hobbit. Given their lack of ability to dance,sing, rap, and zero respect for Queen, it's a good thing they get stabbed good by the end. Horror show begins at 2:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNx3Um3Sahk

[PeterTHX]

$50 million?

You can't get ILM for that and the rest of the movie.

And you want ILM to do it, so the visuals don't suffer in comparison to the original.

[Jeff Kleist]

Sunshine was made for $50 million, and has a lot more complex SFX shots than 2001 would

There's plenty of great SFX houses out there besides ILM, they certainly were kings of motion control, but there's plenty of shops that can do just as good a job.

I can't shoot 70mm for $50 million either, not that they'd let me anyway.

[coolmilo]

Jeff,

One of my friends was a college student when 2001 premiered. He said the original version of the film contained dialog explaining what was going on. But the critics complained and so Kubrick edited out the audio commentary and told people that they are on their own.

He also told me that the book was written after the movie.

The question I have for you: Which influenced modern science fiction cinema more, 2001 or Start Trek (OS)?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There's plenty of great SFX houses out there besides ILM, they certainly were kings of motion control, but there's plenty of shops that can do just as good a job.

As good a job? Hmmm. Lets look at Star Trek:

Ever compare the effects of Nemesis (Digital Domain) to First Contact (ILM) made 6 years earlier? ILM trounces them.

Other studios may be good, but they are the best!

[al cos.]

Generally I agree which is why I was so surprised at some of the shots in Crystal Skull!

Going back to the prospect of Star Trek-next generation getting the HD treatment down the road, has anyone determined if all those original effects elements even still exist? (assuming they would even use them instead of doing new effects from scratch.) And weren't at least some of the TV show effects dug out and repurposed for the first Generations movie?

[thebluemax]

Why are some studios so slow in releasing some essential titles; "Apollo 13", "Sev7en", "Dances with Wolves", "Spartacus" and many other titles that have been released in other countries or on "Dud".

[thebluemax]

And where is "LOA"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You want to get me something for Xmas, get me $50 million to remake 2001 based on the book.

How 'bout $50k to remake the book based on the movie?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

A tight 90 minutes full of character development, dialog and plot, with nigh-zero deviation from the source material.

The movie is the source material.

Editing 2001 to 90 minutes is like taking 3 hours to play Flight of the Bumblebee. You kids, with your Mtv...

[Jeff Kleist]

Why are some studios so slow in releasing some essential titles; "Apollo 13", "Sev7en", "Dances with Wolves", "Spartacus" and many other titles that have been released in other countries or on "Dud".

Because they have promotional schedules to keep, and those titles haven't come up yet in the rotation. HD DVD was all about filling quotas and trying to win a war. The smaller companies that may own European rights to titles don't have the kind of breadth of catalog, and some of them are trying to poach US buyers as well

How 'bout $50k to remake the book based on the movie?

Not even close to enough to build the Discovery interior, let alone pay people

The movie is the source material.

Editing 2001 to 90 minutes is like taking 3 hours to play Flight of the Bumblebee. You kids, with your Mtv...

I'm not editing anything. I believe in editing as little as possible and not changing the story. 2001 is about 180 pages of large type, much of it internal monolgue. I'm just not taking an eternity because I wanted to see how long it took Gary Lockwood to puke, and put it all in the movie

Anyway, there's no way i'll ever be able to show you without making it, so unless you've got that 50m there's not a lot of point in continuing

[jag2007]

[QUOTE=Jeff Kleist;2633267]Honestly, most kids movies today are simply cookie-cutter cashins. Back in the 80s they at least tried. There was stuff like Goonies, or Daryl, or Explorers (OK, not the last act) that tried to be a real movie that while pointed at children could still be enjoyed. Now it's just cookie-cutter fart jokes.

I thought zathura was very well done & I'd love to see it on bluray .

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Not even close to enough to build the Discovery interior, let alone pay people

You need to build sets and pay other people to write a book?! You must really be a 'method author'.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm not editing anything. I believe in editing as little as possible and not changing the story.

You could probably tell Lawrence of Arabia in 30 minutes, too, if you wanted to. However, with movies like these, 'story' (in conventional terms) is not the entire package. Storytelling pace and rhythm are what make them movies and not books, in the first place. The journey is at least as important as the destination.

... not that you don't know all of this.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

How 'bout $50k to remake the book based on the movie?



The movie is the source material.

Editing 2001 to 90 minutes is like taking 3 hours to play Flight of the Bumblebee. You kids, with your Mtv...

The book is not based on the movie, and the movie is not the source material. However, I thought this argument was terminated some months ago?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

The book is not based on the movie, and the movie is not the source material.

Well, to be overly precise, the movie and the book were developed in tandem, but the whole project was started because Stanley Kubrick called up Arthur C. Clarke and said "I want to make a movie. Would you like to work on it with me?" So, if anything, the movie was the impetus for the whole shebang.

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

However, I thought this argument was terminated some months ago?

Sure, but show me a topic around here that hasn't risen from the dead at least twice.

[SpaceDog]

Kubrick wanted to take themes and ideas in the Sentinel and work together with Clarke to create "the proverbial good science fiction movie". It's disengenous to suggest the film is based on the book or that the book is based on the film. They are two intentional concurrent entities with similar themes, concepts and settings, but neither the chicken nor the egg came first. You could say as much that Kubrick came to Clarke first as you could say that the Sentinel came first.

I think anyone who enjoys the film would do well to read the book, as it's excellent. I'm not a detractor from the film 2001 though, and I've always been good with films that leave your mind to it's own devices. I think the two together work wonderfully.

I think better than spending any money creating another film called 2001 (which would be rejected out of hand by most of the scifi audience, because half would be beholden to the first film, and half wouldn't accept a future scifi piece set in the past) we should get someone spending on Rama again, or many of Clarke's other great works.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Kubrick wanted to take themes and ideas in the Sentinel and work together with Clarke to create "the proverbial good science fiction movie". It's disengenous to suggest the film is based on the book or that the book is based on the film. They are two intentional concurrent entities with similar themes, concepts and settings, but neither the chicken nor the egg came first. You could say as much that Kubrick came to Clarke first as you could say that the Sentinel came first.

They were made together, but Kubrick's intent to make a movie was the start of the project. Yes, to some degree, The Sentinel could be considered source material for 2001, but the debate point at hand was not about The Sentinel; it was about the misconception that 2001, the book, was the source for 2001, the movie.

[almy]

Jeff - I read somewhere that Warners will be releasing the Judy Garland / James Mason A STAR IS BORN sometime in 2010. One of my favorites and a first-day buy for me. But, every time I've seen it lately it appeared to be in need of massive restoration. Basically, scenes were replaced with stills while the dialogue continued. I assume those parts had deteriorated beyond repair. Any idea if Warners has found replacements (elements?) for those scenes?

[almy]

One last question today: I've read a lot of complaints about the Blu release of THE FRENCH CONNECTION, and can well understand how disappointed fans were with this. Have you any idea if Fox is going to revisit this title (hopefully without any involvement from William Friedkin)? I generally have no problem with film grain, but this was terrible, and he admits (in the extras) to having subdued much of the color intensity.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

They were made together, but Kubrick's intent to make a movie was the start of the project. Yes, to some degree, The Sentinel could be considered source material for 2001, but the debate point at hand was not about The Sentinel; it was about the misconception that 2001, the book, was the source for 2001, the movie.

You and I can surely agree that the book was not the source for the movie. But neither was the movie the source for the book. They were concurrent individual (but related) artistic endeavors. Both were successful commercially, artistically, and critically. I think it would be unfortunate to criticize one as being less than the other, as I think they both blend to create a whole that is better than the sum of either part.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by almy

Jeff - I read somewhere that Warners will be releasing the Judy Garland / James Mason A STAR IS BORN sometime in 2010. One of my favorites and a first-day buy for me. But, every time I've seen it lately it appeared to be in need of massive restoration. Basically, scenes were replaced with stills while the dialogue continued. I assume those parts had deteriorated beyond repair. Any idea if Warners has found replacements (elements?) for those scenes?

From WIKIPEDIA
For years, Garland fans and film historians expressed great interest in viewing the missing footage from this film. Beginning about 1981, film preservationist Ronald Haver did extensive research of the Warner Bros. film vaults and located some of the missing scenes, including two complete musical numbers, "Here's What I'm Here For" and "Lose That Long Face". In 1983, a 176-minute "restored" version was shown in theaters and then released on home video. The project was a collaboration between the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the studio. Some of the missing footage had to be reconstructed using motion control photography and pan and scan of production stills, which ran accompanied by the restored dialogue. Most of the original multi-track stereophonic sound was also restored. In 2010 the film is being released on Blu-ray DVD. Rumors abound that more of the missing footage has been found, but they remain unsubstantiated since WB has not announced any new footage.