Re: Post Random Movie-Related Thoughts You Have
Posted: Sat August 04, 2018 3:45 am
Spoiler Alert: it is and it's transformative
- Spoiler: show
Whydurdencommatyler wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:lol. I’m hoping it’s not the Nolan 70mm “unrestored” bullshitdurdencommatyler wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:Just bought tickets to an IMAX showing of 2001 and I am HYPE
You saw it in 70mm. This is digital IMAX. It still hasn’t been confirmed that the new digital master is taken from his “unrestored” (I hate even typing that nonsense, ugh)...whatever it is.durdencommatyler wrote:Spoiler Alert: it is and it's transformative
- Spoiler: show
Ok. Maybe you're right. The quick Google search I did after I saw your post seemed to suggest otherwise. But whatever.LoathedVermin72 wrote:You saw it in 70mm. This is digital IMAX. It still hasn’t been confirmed that the new digital master is taken from his “unrestored” (I hate even typing that nonsense, ugh)...whatever it is.durdencommatyler wrote:Spoiler Alert: it is and it's transformative
- Spoiler: show
Joey, my reticence is not simply because his name is involved. It's because of a bunch of evidence and discussion I follow from people in the industry. Like Robert Harris, who knows just a little bit about film restoration and preservation.durdencommatyler wrote:Ok. Maybe you're right. The quick Google search I did after I saw your post seemed to suggest otherwise. But whatever.LoathedVermin72 wrote:You saw it in 70mm. This is digital IMAX. It still hasn’t been confirmed that the new digital master is taken from his “unrestored” (I hate even typing that nonsense, ugh)...whatever it is.durdencommatyler wrote:Spoiler Alert: it is and it's transformative
- Spoiler: show
What I saw today was a revelation. And I have to believe the only reason you wouldn't appreciate it is because Nolan's name is tangentially involved. But I guess we'll never know for sure.
Either way, Kubrick's masterpiece deserves to be seen on a big screen. I know you'll value the experience because the movie is remarkable.






Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
This seems awfully solipsistic. Why would you think a brain can’t recognize it simply because you didn’t?durdencommatyler wrote:I suppose it's all about perception at the end of the day. I can only take your word that what I saw is what you posted. But while in the movie I didn't have any issue with the color at all. Nothing jumped out as different of worse than what I've seen a dozen other times. So at the end of the day... who cares. If the brain can't recognize it without a YouTube side by side, and the image is immaculate and powerful and one is lost in the moment... so what?
Look, seeing a powerful movie like 2001 in a theater is likely going to be overwhelming no matter what the quality is like.durdencommatyler wrote:Also, the space trip in the final act literally had me holding my breathe at times and literally brought tears to my eyes. I've waited my whole life to see/hear that scene in that way. Maybe the color was all fucked up during that too. But what I saw was so incredibly beautiful and magical and important to me that I'll never forget it.
I was speaking about my brain, silly. I started the whole post with, "I suppose it's all about perception."LoathedVermin72 wrote:This seems awfully solipsistic. Why would you think a brain can’t recognize it simply because you didn’t?durdencommatyler wrote:I suppose it's all about perception at the end of the day. I can only take your word that what I saw is what you posted. But while in the movie I didn't have any issue with the color at all. Nothing jumped out as different of worse than what I've seen a dozen other times. So at the end of the day... who cares. If the brain can't recognize it without a YouTube side by side, and the image is immaculate and powerful and one is lost in the moment... so what?
Then you get it.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Look, seeing a powerful movie like 2001 in a theater is likely going to be overwhelming no matter what the quality is like.durdencommatyler wrote:Also, the space trip in the final act literally had me holding my breathe at times and literally brought tears to my eyes. I've waited my whole life to see/hear that scene in that way. Maybe the color was all fucked up during that too. But what I saw was so incredibly beautiful and magical and important to me that I'll never forget it.
I saw Suspiria on a forty-year-old 35mm print that was faded, loaded with red push, speckled with constant damage, and had a soundtrack replete with pops and hiss. And it was still completely overpowering and made me cry a lot.
It’s fine that it doesn’t matter to you, but as somebody who cares about film preservation, restoration, and home video presentation - it matters.durdencommatyler wrote:I was speaking about my brain, silly. I started the whole post with, "I suppose it's all about perception."LoathedVermin72 wrote:This seems awfully solipsistic. Why would you think a brain can’t recognize it simply because you didn’t?durdencommatyler wrote:I suppose it's all about perception at the end of the day. I can only take your word that what I saw is what you posted. But while in the movie I didn't have any issue with the color at all. Nothing jumped out as different of worse than what I've seen a dozen other times. So at the end of the day... who cares. If the brain can't recognize it without a YouTube side by side, and the image is immaculate and powerful and one is lost in the moment... so what?
Yeah. This is why I’m excited to see it in IMAX regardless.durdencommatyler wrote:Then you get it.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Look, seeing a powerful movie like 2001 in a theater is likely going to be overwhelming no matter what the quality is like.durdencommatyler wrote:Also, the space trip in the final act literally had me holding my breathe at times and literally brought tears to my eyes. I've waited my whole life to see/hear that scene in that way. Maybe the color was all fucked up during that too. But what I saw was so incredibly beautiful and magical and important to me that I'll never forget it.
I saw Suspiria on a forty-year-old 35mm print that was faded, loaded with red push, speckled with constant damage, and had a soundtrack replete with pops and hiss. And it was still completely overpowering and made me cry a lot.
So much this. Then they have their TVs set to vibrant picture settings.run2death wrote:I think a lot of people's eyes and color perception have been ruined by shitty, oversaturated cell phone screens.
I look at a Samsung or iPhone X screen and can't stand all the harsh colors.
That wasn't really my point, but whatever.LoathedVermin72 wrote:It’s fine that it doesn’t matter to you, but as somebody who cares about film preservation, restoration, and home video presentation - it matters.durdencommatyler wrote:I was speaking about my brain, silly. I started the whole post with, "I suppose it's all about perception."LoathedVermin72 wrote:This seems awfully solipsistic. Why would you think a brain can’t recognize it simply because you didn’t?durdencommatyler wrote:I suppose it's all about perception at the end of the day. I can only take your word that what I saw is what you posted. But while in the movie I didn't have any issue with the color at all. Nothing jumped out as different of worse than what I've seen a dozen other times. So at the end of the day... who cares. If the brain can't recognize it without a YouTube side by side, and the image is immaculate and powerful and one is lost in the moment... so what?