# Warner Bros. preparing a 'final cut' of 2001 for Blu-ray!!



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

Douglas Trumbull says Warner Bros. preparing a 'final cut' of 2001 for Blu-ray!!

http://douglastrumbull.com/videos

http://in70mm.com/news/2010/trumbull/index.htm

PS click save picture of the 'background Aries' and Station 5... to see shots I have not seen before


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

What an awesome concept! Using large format transparencies from the Kubrick archive to insert the interviewees into the sets. Should be a landmark documentary.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

*OMG it is full of stars*

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

A Final Cut?? I thought all the excised footage was supposedly destroyed by Kubrick...who knows?? This could be THE most exciting news ever!!!
Gary


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

"Final Cut" is a little misleading. Seems it is a documentary on the making of 2001, which is likely to be on a new issue of the existing Blu-ray. Looks pretty AMAZING, I'd double-dip for it.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

No, read it again, The docu is a seperate project, Trumbull clearly hinted at a version of the actual film, not referring to his documentary.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

Yee-freakin'- ha! I am so looking forward to this!


----------



## Stu Pidasso (Apr 5, 2008)

Maybe I should watch the priginal version first...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This project definitely represents the best of what the Blu-ray format is all about. Whether this will be a stand-alone release, or bundled with a new release of the movie, it will definitely be a 'must have' for every 2001 modeler and aficionado out there. The HD image will allow for details of the sets and models to be revealed that have been hidden up till now. I imagine that there will be whole websites devoted to frame grabs of this production for reference material.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

spindrift said:


> No, read it again, The docu is a seperate project, Trumbull clearly hinted at a version of the actual film, not referring to his documentary.


You are right. His documentary is "2001- The making of a Masterpiece", and hinted that Warner was working on a final cut of the movie.

The first excites me, the second scares me.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

According to the FAQ on KubricFilms.com, "He cut out 19 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey after its New York premiere to speed up the pacing of certain scenes."

Are they planning to put the 19 minutes back in?!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

If you survived watching Titanic you can handle an extra 19 minutes of 2001. That would be cool to do.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Again, Kubrick supposedly destroyed the 19 minutes...maybe not, maybe he had them and they found them in his massive archives...this would be fantastic to say the least!
Gary


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

with our luck, it was just 19 more minutes of the monkeys


----------



## jasonalun (Jun 23, 2009)

I can't imagine why they would release a new version of the film unless it had extra footage. I just bought 2001 several months ago and the HD transfer appeared flawless. I can't imagine a new transfer being any better really.


----------



## rkoenn (Dec 18, 2007)

When Wonderfest was winding down this year I happened to be lounging in a chair in the hall and an older gentleman was sitting next to me. We began talking and I found out he had worked for MGM and was involved in 2001, I think primarily in the advertising. But he related a story to me about the original introduction that was deleted. That introduction was a group of then famous scientists, real scientists like Leakey and Sagan et. al., who were discussing the subjects to take place in the movie, such as alien life and intelligence, artificial intelligence, evolution and other such subjects. He said it was deleted, obviously, because of the length and such. But as I recall it may have also been lost. He told me they had needed to get the film from London to LA and after arriving in the US, they were shipped overland. From his story they left Chicago by train and were lost. I am not sure of the complete accuracy of my story but the gist of it is accurate. If I see him at Wonderfest next year I am going to tag up and chat about it again with him.

I also saw the film soon after it came out at a Cinerama theater in Tampa, FL. Although 2001 was not shot in true Cinerama with three cameras, it was shot with a special lens to widen the picture and that effect was great in a Cinerama theater, the screen was huge and wrapped across about 120 degrees of the theater. It was amazing to see and has always been my favorite scifi film because of the subject and intelligence. I have seen it numerous times since but nothing will be like seeing it that first time in Cinerama.

Bob K.


----------



## Tim H. (Jun 23, 2009)

thanks for the links to all those very cool pictures :thumbsup: but haven't you kind of scooped the book, now documentary, and won't they be upset?


----------



## RedHeadKevin (May 1, 2009)

Actually, I heard there won't be any new footage. They're actually cutting and re-editing a lot of it. The "Final Cut" version is only 10 minutes long, and is actually watchable. 

( Sorry, I know it was a groundbreaking movie, and is great to look at, but it's boring as hell. And don't tell me "it's just too deep for you." I know what the point of the movie is. It's still boring.)


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

rkoenn said:


> When Wonderfest was winding down this year I happened to be lounging in a chair in the hall and an older gentleman was sitting next to me. We began talking and I found out he had worked for MGM and was involved in 2001, I think primarily in the advertising. But he related a story to me about the original introduction that was deleted. That introduction was a group of then famous scientists, real scientists like Leakey and Sagan et. al., who were discussing the subjects to take place in the movie, such as alien life and intelligence, artificial intelligence, evolution and other such subjects.
> 
> Bob K.


That's true. I haven't watched my laserdisc version in a while, but I know it is covered in the supplements and I believe they even include a transcript. May be remembering incorrectly on that last point. The laserdisc supplements are supposed to be released on the new Blu disc. It was the very first laserdisc I purchased when I got a player back in 1989. The disc set was $125.00 back then and well worth it.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

RedHeadKevin said:


> ...It's still boring.)


Long space journeys and evolution are boring. It aint Star Wars or even 2010.



jheilman said:


> That's true. I haven't watched my laserdisc version in a while, but I know it is covered in the supplements and I believe they even include a transcript. May be remembering incorrectly on that last point. The laserdisc supplements are supposed to be released on the new Blu disc. It was the very first laserdisc I purchased when I got a player back in 1989. The disc set was $125.00 back then and well worth it.


Ah, the Criterion CAV box version of 2001. Three disks, six sides of goodness. Sooooo nice.


----------



## RedHeadKevin (May 1, 2009)

lunadude said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by RedHeadKevin
> > ...It's still boring.)
> 
> 
> Long space journeys and evolution are boring. It aint Star Wars or even 2010.


I'm sorry, but I have to argue with this for a quick second. 2001 is the most blindly defended movie in history. It had groundbreaking SFX. It was great visually. And that's all. REAL LIFE space journeys and evolution are boring and slow. I thought I was watching a movie. Y'know, entertainment? Something that's supposed to keep my butt in the seat? Silence and slow-motion don't do that. I'm not saying that every sci-fi movie has to be "pew pew pew," with a blaring soundtrack but give me something to entertain me. I loved "Moon" because things actually happened. If Moon had a 10 minute long segment of Sam driving across the moon in silence, I'm not sure it would have been as good. "But it's realistic!" "Reality is BORING." I'm not watching reality. I'm watching entertainment. I'm watching science fiction to get away from reality!

Don't get me started on the writing. "Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story Sentinel, has admitted: "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered." That's a failure of the writer. I can write any drivel, and it will raise far more questions than it answers : "A giraffe was running backwards down a railroad track in Detroit." Why was the giraffe running? Why was it running backwards? Why was it in Detroit? Why was it on the railroad tracks? Was a train coming? Was something chasing it? See? More questions than it answered. Does that mean it's "thought-provoking and deep?" No, it means it's bullshit. 

Here's what 2001 was about: The monolith was a hyper-intelligent alien machine, one of many that existed in the universe to influence species to make evolutionary jumps. The one on Earth at The Dawn of Man inspired the cavemen to use tools and compete with each other. Later, the one on the Moon was found, which sent a signal to other monoliths saying "hey, Humans have developed space travel, enough to find me on the moon." Later, another monolith is found near Jupiter (Saturn in the book.) At the end of the movie, when Bowman goes exploring it, he is transported through a "stargate" and changed into a higher-order being, the "Starchild," a being of energy which represents humanity's next state of evolution. 
The story of HAL9000 and the crew has little to do with the point of the Monolith, but here's what happened with HAL: HAL is confused by conflicting orders, which makes it consider the crew to be a liability on its mission to explore the monolith. HAL kills the crew, in order to carry out what it believes the mission to be. Later (in 2010) when HAL is reactivated, and monoliths create a new star out of Jupiter (to allow the evolution of life on Europa,) the monoliths recognize HAL as a life form of its own, and "evolves" HAL into a creature of energy, similar to what happened to Bowman. 

To quote Peter Griffin: "There. I just saved you 2 boobless hours."


----------



## rkoenn (Dec 18, 2007)

Well to each his own Kevin. But your final statement is hardly applicable to a good portion of the viewers of 2001. 2001 is still a masterpiece of thought provoking "real" science fiction. Many people will never understand it at all and call it irrelevant thinking they just wasted 2 hours of their lives. It was meant to be a thought provoking movie about mankind, intelligence, evolution, etc. and at the same time the first realistic example of what real space travel would be like. It could be enjoyed simply for the reality of the trip. If you only go to movies for shoot ups, gluttonous special effect extravaganzas, and continuous action, no, it would not be for you. I enjoyed Star Wars and the Star Trek series but on a totally different level. These are really science fantasy and are very entertaining. But my enjoyment of 2001 was that for the first time it really did space special effects the way space is which might be frequently boring for many people. Spaceships do not fly like fighter planes, Babylon 5 used close to real space flight dynamics. Really no one before and very few after have modeled space as it really is. And 2001 is always rated extremely highly by experts and viewers, along with Star Wars by the same people, but obviously for different reasons. And your comparison to a "giraffe running backwards down the train track" is such an absurd thought comparison as to be petty. Anyway, no hard feelings, I think you will find more people on my side of the coin than yours.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RedHeadKevin said:


> 2001 is the most blindly defended movie in history.
> SNIP
> More questions than it answered. Does that mean it's "thought-provoking and deep?" No, it means it's bullshit.
> SNIP
> To quote Peter Griffin: "There. I just saved you 2 boobless hours."


Watching 2001 is probably the closest thing to a "religious experience" I've ever had in a movie theater. No other film comes close to capturing the awe, mystery, and grandeur of the universe. 

It's an epic in the truest sense; an iconic masterwork of pure cinema that has inspired artists, scientists, engineers, designers, software titans and filmmakers for over forty years. It is, simply put, one of the most enduring and influential films in the history of the motion-picture medium; a classic by which all other science-fiction films will continue to be judged for years to come.

Kubrick did not make "2001" to be a crowd pleaser. The man was incapable of pandering to the masses. The fact that some find the deliberate pace boring is not surprising; different films work on different audiences in different ways. I find the pace hypnotic and captivating, but that's just me -- and, in any case, given the film's enduring legacy it hardly needs me to defend it.

"2001" is a work of art. Like it, don't like it, whatever. Just don't tell me that by endorsing a widely acknowledged masterpiece I'm "blindly defending" "two boobless hours." Because, you know, that sort of thing insults my intelligence.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

2001 is the most blindly ATTACKED movie ever. If you bring nothing to the movie--no sense of wonder, no sense of humor (I think Hal is hands down one of the funniest characters in movie history, right alongside Dr. Strangelove), no love of photography, design, no curiousity about what it would actually be like to be out in space or to confront an incomprehensible alien intelligence, then 2001 is "boring." And, I submit, so are you.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

I'll never understand the compulsion to tell someone what they like, or love, sucks. That says far more about the person doing so than the criticisms he offers - unasked.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I have no problem with anybody who feels compelled to disagree with me, or anyone else, with regard to a film's artistic merits (or lack thereof). I do however take offense at the condescending notion that liking "2001" is tantamount to "blindly defending it." 

I like "2001" because it takes a powerfully hopeful theme -- the idea that humankind is not alone in the universe -- and expresses that theme in an intelligent, artful, and emotionally powerful way. The fact that it "looks cool" is just icing on the cake.

I respond _emotionally_ to "2001" because, more than any other film I've ever seen, it teleports me to another time and place. That's the best definition of "entertainment" I know.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

Oh, I completely understand not liking the movie. Truly. I will not try and convince someone that they're wrong or "blind" if they don't like it. And I would expect to not have to put up with someone trying to convince me the film sucks. Disagreeing in a normal conversation and then agreeing to disagree is one thing. Coming into a thread where people are clearly excited about the film and are fans to tell them "your movie is overrated and is boring as hell" is what I don't understand. There are plenty of threads and topics here I have zero interest in. I don't go in there and "talk trash" about what they love. Those that like to do that sort of thing...why? What's the compulsion? Makes me wonder, is all.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Watching 2001 is probably the closest thing to a "religious experience" I've ever had in a movie theater.


Mr. Dyle - or is it Mr. Joshua? - I rarely post on Hobbytalk any longer, though I do follow the brilliant threads on _2001_, which has been my favorite work of art in any medium since my first viewing. I felt compelled to reply to the ginger-headed Kevin, but found that you had already done so more eloquently and with more restraint than I would have displayed.

I must echo your sentiments about the film. It has always gotten to me in the way Nabokov identified anything of great beauty would - by manifesting itself as a tingling between the shoulder blades. As a sublime frisson of excitement. And anyone I've encountered who reduced it with the cretinous judgement: "Boring," was indeed empty-headed, and most likely descended from an ape who _didn't _touch the monolith.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Carson Dyle said:


> ...in a movie theater....


Exactly. I've had the pleasure of seeing it in the theater, four or five times over the years. 2001 is a "theater experience", so much of the spectacle is lost on the small screen.

Art is very subjective. This film's story is not for everyone, though I think we can all agree that the FX were groundbreaking and phenomenal.

I trust this wasn't too redundant. :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

it's nice to know I'm not alone in my appreciation of the film.



At the same time, I feel obliged to reiterate the point I made earlier re: 2001 not being everyone's cup of tea.

I know several intelligent, articulate, well-read individuals who find the film (and Kubrick films in general) to be stylistically off-putting. My problem isn't with those who find 2001 dull. I respect the likes, dislikes, and well-reasoned opinions of others. I may not agree with them, but I respect them. My problem is with those who fail to return the favor.

At any rate, this is not the place for either side of the 2001 argument to take things to a personal level. Whatever one's feelings about 2001, let's all do our best to keep the discussion civil.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Bobj812 said:


> Coming into a thread where people are clearly excited about the film and are fans to tell them "your movie is overrated and is boring as hell" is what I don't understand. There are plenty of threads and topics here I have zero interest in. I don't go in there and "talk trash" about what they love. Those that like to do that sort of thing...why? What's the compulsion? Makes me wonder, is all.


I completely agree with this. And not to dwell on a single poster, but it has always struck me as odd behavior. Those that do it always get upset when countered and claim, "I'm just stating my opinion." But, as you said, why the need to state an opinion in a forum where you know it will be contrary to the vast majority? It's like me seeking an Adam Sandler appreciation forum just to post how much I dislike Adam Sandler films. Who benefits? Do I think I'm going to sway some to my side? Do I feel concern that others are so blinded in their Sandler worship that I have to make an attempt to pry them back to sanity? Or do I just feel the need to get a reaction? 

As you said, makes me wonder too.

And I have to agree that 2001 for me has never been a movie. It's an experience. It's a journey I never tire of taking. I think Harry Knowles coined the term "comfort food movies." More than just favorites. Films that you want to get lost in. The original Star Wars, North by Northwest, Citizen Kane, Metropolis, The Maltese Falcon, Wizard of Oz, Blade Runner and 2001.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jheilman said:


> why the need to state an opinion in a forum where you know it will be contrary to the vast majority? It's like me seeking an Adam Sandler appreciation forum just to post how much I dislike Adam Sandler films. Who benefits?


I know what you're saying jheilman, and I'm honestly not trying to play devil's advocate, but I firmly believe that on a public forum we must allow for the occasional dissenting opinion. Heck, as long as the post in question is well reasoned, thoughtfully phrased, and sans personal invective, I _welcome_ opinions that differ from my own. It's one of the things that make discussions like this interesting.

The key is respect. If I feel a post raises a valid critical point I'm more than willing to keep an open mind regarding the content as long as the person doing the posting does so in an intelligent, courteous,and respectful fashion. If, on the other hand, I find myself having to fend off drive-by trolling by someone looking to start a fight, then, well, I find myself questioning that person's motives.

Anyway, I'm hoping we can all agree to either agree _or_ disagree without resorting to name calling. This is generally a pretty civil forum, and I'd like to keep it that way.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Oh no, you're not at all alone, Carson! I love it. The only part of the movie that I find a bit boring is the trippy trip through the wormhole (yes, I know how that reads - I'm just too tired to edit).  But I still enjoy the movie! And if you like that sequence, then more power to you! And hey, if you haven't seen it, then you really can't appreciate Homer's experience in the "Spinemelter 2000"!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I love 2001. Personally, I find it as entertaining as any GOOD movie. It stands on it's own and makes no compromise to be like anything else. I think Gary Lockwood himself summed it up best in his audio track on the HD version when he said that it's not the type of film you put on when you're on your way out to a ball game or dinner. It's the type of movie that you sit home and cruise with. To this day I still think it's a stunningly beautiful film and the designs of hardware and sets still hold up today and in fact surpass much of what can be seen today in sci-fi. The story is not for everybody and it's slower paced narrative works better than say Star Trek: The Motion Picture's. Some stories need a degree of 'pew, pew, pew...boom'. There's been plenty of films like that already, and that's fine. 2001: A Space Odyssey, thankfully, doesn't fall into that category.


----------



## rkoenn (Dec 18, 2007)

lunadude said:


> Exactly. I've had the pleasure of seeing it in the theater, four or five times over the years. 2001 is a "theater experience", so much of the spectacle is lost on the small screen.
> 
> Art is very subjective. This film's story is not for everyone, though I think we can all agree that the FX were groundbreaking and phenomenal.
> 
> I trust this wasn't too redundant. :beatdeadhorse:


As I mentioned before, I saw this the first time in 1968 when it was first released in Cinerama at a theater in Tampa. Absolutely amazing, the way it was truly meant to be seen. The picture stretched across about 120 degrees of screen and the theater was a relatively small theater with the seating much wider then deep. To see space depicted that way in such realism was amazing. I've seen it numerous times since on normal screens but that first time was the best. And how anyone, even if they don't care for it, can debunk it is pathetic. It was a masterpiece then and still is. Yes, I can understand how the zap, zap, bam, bam types might get bored, but still to not realize the significance of this film on so many levels is to ignore reality. And as I said before, while I have seen many good scifi films, and many bad ones, this is still far and away the penultimate of them. It is no wonder it is always listed in the upper 20 on any best films of all time list.

While the redheads opinion could have been half way reasonable and he is entitled to it, the thing that really got me though was the giraffe on the railroad track analogy. That was the most ridiculous and foolish critique I have ever read. I know people who get bored but even those don't deny the intelligence of the film. It takes a reasonable amount of intelligence to view and enjoy this film's more esoteric parts, but to label it as idiotic and simple is possibly the most lame brained analysis ever.

Bob K.


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

To quote Harlan Ellison, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your _informed_ opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."


My first experience with 2001 was in 1973 on the big screen. I was in the 7th grade. I've never gotten over it. 

No film before or since has so deeply inspired my awe and imagination.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Watching 2001 is probably the closest thing to a "religious experience" I've ever had in a movie theater. No other film comes close to capturing the awe, mystery, and grandeur of the universe.


That's funny.
The only time for me was *2010*! I remember seeing it in
the theater, watching the great adventure. Then, Jupiter goes
through its conversion. I was stunned. The idea that science could
do such a thing as create a star! 
And subsequently, all those new worlds to explore!
I just sat there staring through wide eyes. I loved it!


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

I had the life-changing good luck to see _2001_ in Cinerama during it's 1968 premiere run at the Capitol Theater in New York City. I was 12 years old at the time. I still vividly remember walking out into the lobby during intermission and _attempting_ to discuss with my Dad what we had both seen so far. I couldn't do it. I was literally speechless. Carson's description of a "religious experience" is not hyperbole. That movie-going experience affected me in a most fundamental way and stays with me to this day as one of the truly "heightened" experiences of my life.

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.ph...SEY-PREMIERES-IN-CINERAMA,-NEW-YORK-CITY.html


----------



## Tim H. (Jun 23, 2009)

So entirely caught up in this film it kept my butt in the seat the whole time, even during the intermission because I didn't want to risk missing something. Awed and dazzled and *entertained* and thought provoked by the whole film which took me to a place never before seen so convincingly portrayed, totally speechless after. Forget how many times I went after but do remember going again when it returned a year later I believe.

And worth every penny of the ridiculous high pre-reserved opening night tickets ($2.75?? someone correct me) - ordered by mail - with the film projected on the biggest screen in the grandest theatre in town with a red carpet and honor guard intro.

Yeah, nothing entertaining about that. Oh well, some people don't like it in the least, that's fine, it's their loss.


----------



## RedHeadKevin (May 1, 2009)

Having read the posts since my last one, and after re-reading my own posts, I am going to apologize for my comments. ( I sounded like a bit of a prick, honestly.) This is one of those "agree to disagree" situations. I'm still not a fan, but I'll give it another chance one of these days, and won't hate on the people who enjoy this movie. 

Hey, I can't always be right. I enjoy David Lynch's "Dune."


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I enjoy Dune too. And it has the same production designer as 2001...


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I have close friends who wouldn't sit through 2001 if I paid them. So I get that it's certainly not for everyone. And we generally agree on films. It's just nothing like a traditional film. The human characters are rather boring. There are loooooong periods of silence. The entire first act has no dialogue. It takes its time showing the graceful motion of spacecraft. Some would say way too long. A computer voice is the most dynamic character. I can understand the gripes.

But the film is more about the over-arching concepts and the visual experience. I love it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

2001 is a true work of cinemagraphic art.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If someone just doesn't like the film, they should just say so. However, if they want to express their opinion as to what the film is, what it means and whether it has any value or not they should read up more on Kubrick and the meanings he was trying to convey through his other films as well as this one. Have a bit of respect for the man, give him the benefit of the doubt, then do some research on his work. 

If you don't want to do that, then your opinion is based on a superficial understanding of the material. That may be appropriate for most movies, but not this one. Sorry.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> I enjoy Dune too.


Dune sucks.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I didn't say it didn't suck; I just said I enjoyed it!


----------



## rkoenn (Dec 18, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> Dune sucks.


I didn't care for the movie either but thought the SyFy channel mini-series Dune and Children of Dune was quite good. I have those on DVD and maybe it would be worth another viewing now that you mention it.

Bob K.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Watching 2001 is probably the closest thing to a "religious experience" I've ever had in a movie theater.


You may be called as a witness for the defense when this guy goes before the judge:

http://gawker.com/5636331/why-you-shouldnt-drop-acid-and-go-to-the-movies

Gene


----------



## Tim H. (Jun 23, 2009)

Digital Bits published a comment that the documentary may be nixxed. They're looking into it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, I didn't want to be the one to burst any 2001-related bubbles, but an acquaintance of Dave Larson's recently told me that Larson and Trumbull's proposed documentary had failed to gain much traction at Warner Bros. (despite the nifty pitch video found on Trumbull's site).

From what I understand, there is still a certain degree of mutual resentment between Trumbull and the Kubrick family owing to a decades old "disagreement" over the film's SFX credit. Unfortunately, without the support of the Kubrick estate, producing the type of documentary Trumbull and Larson originally envisioned would be problematic.

The good news is Larson's long-in-the-making "Making of" book _does_ have the support of the Kubrick family, and with any luck he'll soon find a publisher.

Here's hoping.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> The good news is Larson's long-in-the-making "Making of" book _does_ have the support of the Kubrick family, and with any luck he'll soon find a publisher.
> 
> Here's hoping.


Soon *find* a publisher?!? This is disappointing. I thought he was further along than this. 

Besides, I _am_ a publisher and, despite several attempts through multiple channels, I have never been able to make contact with Mr. Larson to even discuss an offer to publish his book. It has been hinted to me that this is because he already has a deal and thus is not interested.

If anyone has any definite knowledge of the state of this project, or could put me in touch with Mr. Larson, please PM me ASAP.

M.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, I didn't want to be the one to burst any 2001-related bubbles, but an acquaintance of Dave Larson's recently told me that Larson and Trumbull's proposed documentary had failed to gain much traction at Warner Bros. (despite the nifty pitch video found on Trumbull's site)...........
> 
> ......The good news is Larson's long-in-the-making "Making of" book _does_ have the support of the Kubrick family, and with any luck he'll soon find a publisher.........


That appears to be the case, but it's more due to the money people just not seeing the need for another DVD on the subject, especially with DVD sales trending lower as digital media evolves. (Yes, I know....short-sighted "execs" that aren't film fans....)

Not sure about any tensions with the Kubrick estate. I think that has been pushed into the past. In fact, the Kubrick estate was very cooperative when Doug did his Academy lecture a few years ago.

As for the book - the licensing agreement is in place for the book, now they just need to find a publisher and Dave needs to write and lay the thing out. Dave is as particular about this subject as we are - (well, more so, I would say) - and wants to make sure the book does the subject justice.

At the very least, we have Doug's wonderful site to provide new information.

Gene


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

GKvfx said:


> ... find a publisher and Dave needs to write and lay the thing out...


It hasn't been written yet? At all? I guess I figured after all these years of research and note taking and such that it was drafted into some form of near final-done-ness. I've been going about my own film-franchise idea/project all backwards.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Sounds like just the "idea" of doing a book is trying to be marketed? LOL, hopefully he has something more tangible in writing otherwise it's just a collection of Kubrick memorabilia.


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Don't look to see this for a long while, folks. Last year I contacted MagicImage Filmbooks as to when their biography of the late, great Oscar-winning FX guy Arnold "Buddy" Gillespie would be published. Here is their response: "Thank you so much for your interest in The Wizard of MGM. When this book is eventually published, it will be recognized as the best insider's view of the film industry ever written. The stories and photos are truly amazing. When the economy picks up a bit, and we deem there to be enough interest in a book like this, I am sure that it will see the light of day." Well, if the economy doesn't support a book that has already been thoroughly researched, written and assembled, and on a subject that would have a wide public appeal, the Larson book might not see the light of day.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

moonbus01 said:


> ..."When (the Gillespie) book is eventually published, it will be recognized as the best insider's view of the film industry ever written."


What an amusingly hyperbolic statement.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Model Man said:


> It hasn't been written yet? At all? I guess I figured after all these years of research and note taking and such that it was drafted into some form of near final-done-ness. I've been going about my own film-franchise idea/project all backwards.


Well, he does have a day job. Seriously, the money he's going to make on this is going to be less than minimum wage when you add up all the hours talking to people, researching the material that was made available to him, and the costs of flying to England several times.

I don't want to come off like a Dave apologist, but let's be realistic. This is a big project, had licensing issues up the ying-yang (that a technical term....), and is going to take a lot of time to put together. My hope is that they can find a publisher willing to commit resources so that we get the ultimate coffee table book. 

Speaking from a bit of experience, as you spend more time on research, you do figure out what you want to say. So, the time spent so far is not idle.

Gene


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

GKvfx said:


> This is a big project, had licensing issues up the ying-yang (that a technical term....)


I think you mean Yin-yang.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Wish we could help him fund it, using something like Kickstarter.com. Multiple people donate $ to help a project off the ground. This works for books, movies, music, art, tools, ...

I figure I'm going to buy the book, and I'd be willing to throw him some extra bucks, to get it started. I'm guessing a bunch of folks would.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I don't think it's a question of finding a publisher so much as finding the _right_ publisher.

With volumes like The Stanley Kubrick Archive and The Making of Star Wars companies such as Taschen and Del Rey have set the bar pretty high in terms of delivering a product worthy of the subject matter. No doubt Dave Larson wants the same for "2001." If that means waiting for the right deal to come along, so be it. In the mean time, as Gene points out, we can be happy for the wonderful images popping up on Trumbull's site.


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Yeah, I don't think the Kubrick people would agree to the "Hey gang, let's raise money by pitching in and put on a show" concept. They would demand a class product or there wouldn't be a product, as I imagine they have final veto power.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

moonbus01 said:


> Yeah, I don't think the Kubrick people would agree to the "Hey gang, let's raise money by pitching in and put on a show" concept. They would demand a class product or there wouldn't be a product, as I imagine they have final veto power.


There is no reason a privately published book can't be a class act.

Sad thing is that so much wonderful material is just outside our reach.


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

I totally agree. But those boutique printings are expensive and short-run. That leaves the rest of us standing around looking at our shoes. If it's going to be a while either way, it might have a better shot if he and DT concentrate on the documentary first with a kick-ass overview making of. Then publish the detail book with what to send all into a Snuffles-like state of euphoria.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Bad news, kids. Doug Trumbull was just in Toronto last night, and he told the assembled throng that Warner pulled the plug on the doc. He said that since Warner has the rights to the material, it's dead.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

That's a real shame, if there was something meaningful to add to this epic film, I'd have loved to have supported it.

That said, when I look at the Science Fiction movies that I consider to have an epic scope, I notice that each of them have long plodding moments that, overall, are hated by the masses but have a staunchly devoted core following.

2001 (The space 'tripping' sequence)
Star Trek: TMP (The eternal jaunt through the cloud)
Dune (too many sequences to mention; the narration)

I agree with most critics on most of the specifics, but I loved them all in their own way.

Tib


----------

