The big deal is that I did not need to see the inside of the ship in the first place. In my opinion, the addition interrupted the “emotional” continuity of the film at its conclusion.
The recent DVD release has all 3 versions of the film, and I understand is a very comprehensive and well done package.
Welcome back Michael! Of course, the original version is my favorite. The date escapes me, but it was probably 1978 when I first saw it at the UA Cinema 150 in Carolina, Puerto Rico. In many ways, a more satisfying experience than that other movie by George Lucas. The film portrayed a more human and personal side. And although I enjoyed it entirely from start to finish, the opening desert sequence still gets me! It’s hard to explain, but it felt like I was “there”, or watching something that was “actually happening”. Anyway, a few years ago, the Director’s Cut (or “definitive” cut, whatever) was screened at Cal State Long Beach, and introduced by Director of Photography Vilmos Zsigmond. What a treat!
Bill: if you check the IMBD, it looks like Alabama doubled for many of the Indiana locations.
I attended a 70 mm presentation of “2001†at the Dome back in the early 90’s. To me, the distortions were tolerable, with the notable exception of Discovery’s image during the “Jupiter Mission†segment, as described by Kram a few postings above. To say it looked like a “banana†is kind. But in the end, the good outweighed the bad: the landing at Clavius and the entire “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite†sequences were absolutely spectacular. I was engulfed, or rather “enveloped” by the huge images on screen and the terrific soundtrack. Because this film has influenced me in many ways, I would definitely make the trip to the Dome if it plays there again.
Per the Arclight website, “2001” will screen January 30, 2008. Other goodies for the month of January include “Dr. Zhivago”, “El Cid”, “Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind” & a few more classics. Not a lot of details though.
I don’t know if any plans are in place to restore Pacific 1-2-3 at Hollywood Blvd, but if not it’s worthy of inclusion in the list.
Looking at Latin America and the Caribbean, the Laguna Gardens UA Cinema 150 at Isla Verde, Puerto Rico, tops my list. It is my understanding that the theatre is still closed, and salvageable. This was (is) a fantastic theatre with a giant D-150 screen and a terrific sound system.
Ed: When I first read about the DVD release of the “Final Cut” earlier in the year, the plan was only to screen it in NY and LA on a limited engagement basis. I’m wondering too if the success of this theatrical run encouraged WB’s to expand the release.
I can only speak for the first two weeks of release, but on a per-screen average, and only on two theatres nationwide, it ate up the competition by a wide margin. The way things are going, we may see this theatrical run go through December.
Macbear: If your main goal is to see a 70 mm film that you like, more than likely you will not be dissapointed. Other than the fact that you staring at a blank screen before the show, once things get going it’s not bad. But the Egyptian in its current state is not remotely close to the grand palace it used to be.
Definitely agree Howard. The main reason I have not seen the Final Cut is the choice of venue (Second reason: I’m not buying Deckard as a replicant). Anyway, why was this not presented at one one of the Westwood or Hollywood first-class houses is beyond me, considering the fan base the film has. Not to mention that the dystopian vision of LA itself is almost a “character” in the film. Driving on the 405 Freeway, with all those creepy billboards around the refineries near Torrance at night, sure looks like a landscape not too distant from the one depicted in the film.
Have not seen it, but “Blade Runner” is still playing at the Landmark until this Thursday. On a per screen average basis (including NYC & LA), it’s doing pretty good.
William: I moved to the LA area in the late 80’s. As you know, during that time and until the mid 90’s, there was an unprecendented surge in 70 MM releases. Although I don’t have hard numbers, my experience tells me that given the choice between 70 vs 35 mm, patrons chose 70 mm consistently. So if we have 70 mm engagements out-grossing 35 mm, what happened? Were the earnings not enough to cover for the additional cost of blow-ups or shooting in 65 mm? Or was it a cost cutting issue within the theatre chains?
The economics of the existing motion picture industrial-complex baffle me.
Ed, I asked the same question on the Cinerama Dome’s page. Here’s HowardBHaas response:
“My guess is that it is still very enjoyable,and even more interesting because it is an ORIGINAL print. Perhaps there’s a little color fading in a few places or the sound isn’t perfect. Remember that B means good or very good, by definition. I sure wouldn’t want to see a print in a D condition, but that’s not this one.”
I am not 100 % clear on what “original” means. My guess is that it would be a print struck before the re-issue from 6 years ago.
As far as HTWWW, the print screened a few years ago at the Cinerama Dome was in great shape, with a terrific soundtrack. I don’t know the condition of “This is Cinerama”. As of this time, I am not aware of any plans to show 3-strip Cinerama in the near future.
I’m thinking seriuosly to make the trip for “2001”: it will be the 40th anniversary of the film.
Thanks D Roben for the info. The standard screen will do it for me. I’m sure the 70 mm presentations will be top-notch. But I agree with Roadshow: they should use the giant screen!!!
Good points William. Top Gun, Titanic and Ghostbusters were blow-ups. And I would not necessarily label them as “classics”. But that’s just me.
I would not bet on it, but it’s my understanding that for “2001” there were no Cinerama rectified prints (ie not like the Ultra-Panavision). I wonder, however, if rectified prints were struck for later re-issues to be screened at D-150 theatres. Anyway, this was a “Cinerama” presentation in name only, since Geoffrey Unsworth and Kubrick shot it in Super-Panavision. Could “original” in this case be a print before the 2001 re-issue?
Jodar,
The big deal is that I did not need to see the inside of the ship in the first place. In my opinion, the addition interrupted the “emotional” continuity of the film at its conclusion.
The recent DVD release has all 3 versions of the film, and I understand is a very comprehensive and well done package.
JSA
Welcome back Michael! Of course, the original version is my favorite. The date escapes me, but it was probably 1978 when I first saw it at the UA Cinema 150 in Carolina, Puerto Rico. In many ways, a more satisfying experience than that other movie by George Lucas. The film portrayed a more human and personal side. And although I enjoyed it entirely from start to finish, the opening desert sequence still gets me! It’s hard to explain, but it felt like I was “there”, or watching something that was “actually happening”. Anyway, a few years ago, the Director’s Cut (or “definitive” cut, whatever) was screened at Cal State Long Beach, and introduced by Director of Photography Vilmos Zsigmond. What a treat!
Bill: if you check the IMBD, it looks like Alabama doubled for many of the Indiana locations.
JSA
I have the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
JSA
I attended a 70 mm presentation of “2001†at the Dome back in the early 90’s. To me, the distortions were tolerable, with the notable exception of Discovery’s image during the “Jupiter Mission†segment, as described by Kram a few postings above. To say it looked like a “banana†is kind. But in the end, the good outweighed the bad: the landing at Clavius and the entire “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite†sequences were absolutely spectacular. I was engulfed, or rather “enveloped” by the huge images on screen and the terrific soundtrack. Because this film has influenced me in many ways, I would definitely make the trip to the Dome if it plays there again.
JSA
Well, that’s a disappointment.
Might as well head north to Seattle: “2001” will screen in 70 mm at the Cinerama early next year…
JSA
Per the Arclight website, “2001” will screen January 30, 2008. Other goodies for the month of January include “Dr. Zhivago”, “El Cid”, “Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind” & a few more classics. Not a lot of details though.
JSA
Thank you Rizzo, that’s great news!
I don’t know if any plans are in place to restore Pacific 1-2-3 at Hollywood Blvd, but if not it’s worthy of inclusion in the list.
Looking at Latin America and the Caribbean, the Laguna Gardens UA Cinema 150 at Isla Verde, Puerto Rico, tops my list. It is my understanding that the theatre is still closed, and salvageable. This was (is) a fantastic theatre with a giant D-150 screen and a terrific sound system.
JSA
It was a short but very pleasant meetup for me. I’m looking forward to the next one.
JSA
Ed: When I first read about the DVD release of the “Final Cut” earlier in the year, the plan was only to screen it in NY and LA on a limited engagement basis. I’m wondering too if the success of this theatrical run encouraged WB’s to expand the release.
JSA
Ed: I would not be so sure. Not all of these theatres have DLP capability. I bet a handful of 35 mm prints were struck.
JSA
I can only speak for the first two weeks of release, but on a per-screen average, and only on two theatres nationwide, it ate up the competition by a wide margin. The way things are going, we may see this theatrical run go through December.
JSA
Still playing at Landmark!! Don’t know if “happy” is the word, but I’m really surprised: 5 weeks! I thought two at most.
JSA
One more week at Landmark, by “popular demand”! It also opened at the Seattle Cinerama this Friday.
JSA
Seattle does it right: “Blade Runner” opens Oct 26. Should be a cool show at the Cinerama!
JSA
Macbear: If your main goal is to see a 70 mm film that you like, more than likely you will not be dissapointed. Other than the fact that you staring at a blank screen before the show, once things get going it’s not bad. But the Egyptian in its current state is not remotely close to the grand palace it used to be.
JSA
Definitely agree Howard. The main reason I have not seen the Final Cut is the choice of venue (Second reason: I’m not buying Deckard as a replicant). Anyway, why was this not presented at one one of the Westwood or Hollywood first-class houses is beyond me, considering the fan base the film has. Not to mention that the dystopian vision of LA itself is almost a “character” in the film. Driving on the 405 Freeway, with all those creepy billboards around the refineries near Torrance at night, sure looks like a landscape not too distant from the one depicted in the film.
JSA
Have not seen it, but “Blade Runner” is still playing at the Landmark until this Thursday. On a per screen average basis (including NYC & LA), it’s doing pretty good.
JSA
William: I moved to the LA area in the late 80’s. As you know, during that time and until the mid 90’s, there was an unprecendented surge in 70 MM releases. Although I don’t have hard numbers, my experience tells me that given the choice between 70 vs 35 mm, patrons chose 70 mm consistently. So if we have 70 mm engagements out-grossing 35 mm, what happened? Were the earnings not enough to cover for the additional cost of blow-ups or shooting in 65 mm? Or was it a cost cutting issue within the theatre chains?
The economics of the existing motion picture industrial-complex baffle me.
JSA
Ron Fricke shot “Baraka” (1992) in Todd-AO.
JSA
Ed, I asked the same question on the Cinerama Dome’s page. Here’s HowardBHaas response:
“My guess is that it is still very enjoyable,and even more interesting because it is an ORIGINAL print. Perhaps there’s a little color fading in a few places or the sound isn’t perfect. Remember that B means good or very good, by definition. I sure wouldn’t want to see a print in a D condition, but that’s not this one.”
I am not 100 % clear on what “original” means. My guess is that it would be a print struck before the re-issue from 6 years ago.
As far as HTWWW, the print screened a few years ago at the Cinerama Dome was in great shape, with a terrific soundtrack. I don’t know the condition of “This is Cinerama”. As of this time, I am not aware of any plans to show 3-strip Cinerama in the near future.
I’m thinking seriuosly to make the trip for “2001”: it will be the 40th anniversary of the film.
JSA
D Roben: Tron was shot in Super Panavision 70.
Thanks D Roben for the info. The standard screen will do it for me. I’m sure the 70 mm presentations will be top-notch. But I agree with Roadshow: they should use the giant screen!!!
JSA
Good points William. Top Gun, Titanic and Ghostbusters were blow-ups. And I would not necessarily label them as “classics”. But that’s just me.
I would not bet on it, but it’s my understanding that for “2001” there were no Cinerama rectified prints (ie not like the Ultra-Panavision). I wonder, however, if rectified prints were struck for later re-issues to be screened at D-150 theatres. Anyway, this was a “Cinerama” presentation in name only, since Geoffrey Unsworth and Kubrick shot it in Super-Panavision. Could “original” in this case be a print before the 2001 re-issue?
Questions, questions….
JSA
Thanks Howard. Yes, the fact that it is billed as an original print does indeed make it worthwhile!