[Canceled] 2001 Regrade (Criterion Laserdisc)

[Jetrell Fo]

On the organ? There is a version around but I'm not sure if it is the right mix, they claim cinema DTS but from recent years.

I don't know who "they" are but it is not on the spleen and I don't believe it has been shared openly on any projects. It is, as far as I am told, from the 2010 70mm presentation.

[FrankT]

Is it safe to assume that the regrade will still be going ahead?

[PDB]

Is it safe to assume that the regrade will still be going ahead?

Eventually but not anytime soon.

Someone was nice enough to put together a comparison between the BD and the new trailer:

[BronzeTitan]

Compared here first https://fanrestore.com/thread-2120.html , but thanks for this find! It goes to show that most anything looks better that the Blu-ray. In fact, the video's comments are even more enlightening. for example:

TheStockwell: When I saw the "unrestored" trailer, I wondered who the Hell thought the film looked better in turquoise and teal. I owned the Criterion edition of the film which was supervised by Kubrick. It wasn't color graded into blue green with weak contrast, dingy, and with virtually no blacks or whites. ... It was a long time ago, in 1993 - remember laserdiscs? The Criterion release was for the 25th anniversary of the film. The film was split into 30-minutes sides. ... Since Kubrick supervised the colour matching and transfer for the Criterion release - and wrote a few lines saying it was authorised by him - all Nolan really has to do is use it as a reference.

[TServo2049]

Playing devil's advocate here, this does resemble both of the 70mm prints I've already seen, so I think the "based off the 1999 IP" claim rings true. (Though the fact Nolan was told no prints were made off of it makes me wonder, was this *not* the same intermediate used to make the 70mm prints that first screened in 2001, and subsequently the fresh print the American Cinematheque commissioned in 2016?) I'm going to be seeing this at the Castro, I'll see how it compares to what I remember from the other two prints.

[BronzeTitan]

Before you go, check out some of the pictures of the Taschen book The Making Of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here's one website with a few shots . .

Den Of Geek: A closer look at Taschen's deluxe book, The Making Of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Taschen received unfettered access to the Kubrick estate. They got to see everything and prepared it for printing in a world-class $1,000+ book set (mere mortals can get the centerpiece book at a more reasonable price on Amazon). This will give you another and best (in my opinion) reference for which to keep your eyes wide open. 

[zoidberg]

If it is indeed based off an existing IP then it should just be a case of adjusting the print process to the newer 70mm print stock. The colour timing is baked into the IP so in theory Nolan shouldn't be able to change it (but why would he want to?). 

It's a shame the print won't be mag striped. 6-track mag sounds soooooo good

[TServo2049]

I am seeing the new 70mm at the Castro, and intermission just started. It basically looks identical to the last two prints I saw. The comment above that makes it seem like the "turquoise and teal" is some brand new 2018 revisionism are mistaken - the colors are the same as the last two prints I saw which were also struck from a circa 1999-2000 element. The scenes with noticeably odd colors, like a few teal skies in the Dawn of Man section, or the slightly yellow tinge of the space station, or the moon taxi interior with a teal wash and the view of the moon out the window looking purple, all match between the Cinematheque print I saw in 2016, the c.2001 print I saw at the Castro last year, and the new one. The Jupiter mission sequences have the same warm/cool, 80s/90s LPP-esque dichotomy (e.g., there's a scene where the pod bay looks teal and cyan, then takes on a warmer, faintly gold hue with brighter white highlights when the lights turn on).

As for "weak contrast" and "virtually no blacks or whites," I am seeing neither issue on the print as projected. I think it either just doesn't convert well to consumer digital color space, or they tried to match a digital transfer to the print's colors for that trailer and botched it. The colors in the trailer look similar, but the balance and white/black levels look much better when seeing it on film, projected in a theater.

I am not saying this is accurate to 1968, but it is accurate to the timing I've seen on other 70mm prints from the last 15-20 years. This has to be from a sister element to the one used to make the 2001 reissue prints and the 2016 American Cinematheque print; there is damage I did not see on the other prints, so it may not be the SAME element, but regardless, there is no brand-new revisionism going on in how the print looks as projected. As far as I can tell, any issues with the color are consistent with all the other prints struck since the late 90s. Right or wrong, all I can say is that these colors are not new to *this print*, and whatever they are, they are *not* a brand-new revisionism cooked up in 2018.

[captainsolo]

Be sure to check for any directional dialogue. There are reports that some theaters got the original mix and some the later Warner remix.

[TServo2049]

I couldn't tell if dialogue was directional or not. I didn't notice any, it sounded like the same mix I heard the last two times.