Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.movies    |    Discussing SF motion pictures    |    28,343 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 27,574 of 28,343    |
|    hector to moviePig    |
|    Re: "Unrestoring" 2001: A Space Odyssey    |
|    21 May 18 20:46:23    |
      XPost: rec.arts.movies.past-films       From: bobble@there.com              On 21/05/2018 12:39 PM, moviePig wrote:       > On 5/20/2018 7:13 PM, super70s wrote:       >> Some relevant passages from a EW piece:       >>       >> "Christopher Nolan may be the only working director qualified to       >> reexamine Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi masterpice, which Nolan has       >> carefully 'unrestored' to its original photo format for an extraordinary       >> theatrical rerelease unlike any other 50th anniversary."       >>       >> "EW: For someone who's never seen this film, why should they make a       >> point to see it in this special format?"       >> "CN: ...What we're doing is putting it out there in its original 70mm       >> photochemical analog glory to give audiences in 2018 the same       >> experiences that audiences had in 1968."       >> "EW: Which scenes most benefit from 'unrestoration'?"       >> "CN: The entire film is so much more heightened, the color particularly.       >> There are things that appear to you in a revelatory way."       >>       >>       >> I'm not exactly getting the point of this, they go to so much trouble to       >> restore iconic films like this one, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of       >> Oz, etc., in digital format and I thought the whole point of that was       >> for "heightened color" and a sharper picture (which you often see       >> demonstrated in a split screen comparison).       >>       >> I only have the original MGM/WB DVD release so I guess I'm stuck with       >> the "inferior restored" version, lol.       >       > 1. The '68 'audience experience' also entailed a wraparound Cinerama       > screen, which was very way damn cool. Even Imax won't do that today.              I thought all Cinerama after about 1962 was fake, just using the name.       >       > 2. There's nothing about '70mm photochemical analog' that can't be       > improved upon by high-res digital. It's physics, not Holy Communion.       >              The advantage of digital is cleaner information not necessarily more detail.       I have this on bluray, so it looks pretty good when I watch it.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca