Skip

I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over
September 8, 2010 2:53 PM   Subscribe

If you loved Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, check out these gorgeous, high-resolution promotional photographs. The film's special effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull invented numerous film techniques and effects to help Kubrick tell his story, and Trumbull is currently producing with film historian David Larson the documentary 2001: Beyond The Infinite - The Making of a Masterpiece (scroll down, click the link on the second video). This documentary aims to make use of the Kubrick Archives's well-preserved large-format Ektachrome photos taken of the film production, green screen techniques, surviving cast and production staff, and numerous interview transcripts to bring to life the story about the making of this classic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon (58 comments total) 37 users marked this as a favorite

 
I always thought this one looked like a space-froggy.
posted by Artw at 3:00 PM on September 8, 2010


Awesome photos but I want em bigger! I can't use these as wallpapers. I need actual Monolith size photoz!
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:07 PM on September 8, 2010 [3 favorites]


Yeah, by these days standards those are rather low res. Not even 1920x1080.
posted by OwlBoy at 3:11 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


See you next Wednesday
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:12 PM on September 8, 2010 [3 favorites]


I think a strong argument can be made that, 40 years and several James Cameron blockbusters later, there still hasn't been a more technologically ambitious effects film.

Great post.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:22 PM on September 8, 2010 [5 favorites]


That Douglas Trumbull site is full of interesting videos, thanks!
posted by Hicksu at 3:23 PM on September 8, 2010


Yeah, I agree, I want these at higher rez, so I can make wallpapers. No not wallpapers on my monitor, wallpapers on my office wall, floor to ceiling. This is the only film I've watched so many times I lost count. Hmm.. haven't seen it in a few years, maybe it's time for another viewing.

This image of the lunar shuttle stands out to me. I remember reading the paperback "The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey" and Kubrick was really proud of that scene, even though it was a technical blooper, actually, he loved it because it was a blooper. After the moon landings, he asked the astronauts if there were any technical flaws in the movie. That was the only scene they could find. The rockets wouldn't blow billows of dust since there is no air on the moon to hold the dust up. It would have sprayed in a flat spread and fell back to the ground immediately. Kubrick was so proud of having gotten everything accurate except that. The only way he could have done the shot accurately with models and tech of that era would have been to film the scene in a vacuum. So I think we can forgive him for this error. And besides, I agree with Kubrick, it looks cool.

I was sort of shocked to see Kubrick and the cast standing in front of TMA-1 and they didn't have their spacesuit helmets on. That's how strong the reality of the movie is. I've seen plenty of production stills before, but this sort of image just can't break the 4th wall.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:28 PM on September 8, 2010 [7 favorites]


2001, you say? What better time to link to the last scene with Pink Floyd's "Echoes" over it?

Cool transitions are at about 7:00, 11:00, and especially 19:12...
posted by vorfeed at 3:34 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


...and the second 'flaw' being Dr. Floyd's liquid corn flowing down his straw after he's sucked at it.

+ also what 'green screen' technique was used? = thought it was all front-projection, rotoscoping and mirrors.
posted by jettloe at 3:36 PM on September 8, 2010


Oh hey, I'm reading about Trumbull and I didn't know he directed Silent Running. I love that movie. Today it is mostly forgotten, but I swear it would be well loved as one of the great SF films, if it didn't have an awful soundtrack by Joan Baez. That's just the sort of thing that would alienate (ha) a science fiction audience.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:37 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Poor little space robots.
posted by Artw at 3:38 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


...and the second 'flaw' being Dr. Floyd's liquid corn flowing down his straw after he's sucked at it.

That was explained away as back pressure from the sealed pouch. The stiffness of the plastic would have pulled the pouch back into shape, sucking the food back down the straw. That's good enough for me.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:40 PM on September 8, 2010


charlie don't surf: And besides, I agree with Kubrick, it looks cool.

I do too. And having not heard that story before, it makes me like Kubrick even more.

Certain control-freak directors (I'm not naming any names, but one of them has already been name dropped in this thread) upon learning hearing like this probably would have wanted to re-cut the whole thing and release it as the official director's cut with the "error" fixed.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:40 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Smoking on the moon.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:41 PM on September 8, 2010


Smoking on the moon.

Yeah, I saw that in the still I mentioned. Hey, if you can't smoke on the moon, what's the point of going there?
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:43 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Look at the other movies Trumbull has worked on... what a C.V...
posted by Webbster at 3:49 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's too bad that Trumbull gave up on directing after Brainstorm. That was a pretty cool movie and at the time I was looking forward to seeing what he would do next.
posted by octothorpe at 3:50 PM on September 8, 2010


I think a strong argument can be made that, 40 years and several James Cameron blockbusters later, there still hasn't been a more technologically ambitious effects film.

It's the attention to and prioritization of detail and beauty over spectacle. That's why no one really talks about Avatar or Lord of the Rings, etc. but people still fawn over 2001 and Blade Runner. It's not a coincidence that films like these have held up so remarkably over time.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:00 PM on September 8, 2010 [3 favorites]


He didn't give up directing, funding just dried up for the kinds of things he wanted to make. I saw him give a talk at the TCM film festival in april, and he's still shopping projects around. He showed bits of the 2001 doco, but he told us WB wasn't very inteested in releasing it. He seemed like a supremely smart guy working in a very dumb industry.
posted by Omon Ra at 4:02 PM on September 8, 2010


Sad confession 1: while watching the video, my first thought was "How did they clear the rights?"

Sad confession 2: last weekend, I popped over to a pal's house to help fix his television. I used to have a summer job fixing tellies when I was at school. Still have some of the chops. It was a huge old Sony, one of the last of the big CRTs, and he'd downloaded the service manual as a PDF. I had the main circuit board splayed out in front of me on his workbench, soldering iron in hand, and was consulting the vectorised PCB layout from the manual on a large LCD monitor to one side. While zooming in on one particular component (IC7600, which regulated the balanced PSU rails for the frame output, and which was diagnosed faulty by the set's own computer), the vision of Dave Bowman faultfinding the AE35 unit became overwhelming.

That TV is probably the last vintage to have PCBs that look like those in 2001.

Alas, despite installing a new IC7600, the TV refused to work. Another unfortunate coincidence.

Happy confession 1: I was far too young to see 2001 when it first came out, so I'd read the book a few times (blg Clarke fan) before I got the chance to see the movie. If you haven't seen the movie (and a quick poll among the younger people in the office suggests this is an increasingly common problem), read the book first. Then you won't have any problems following the narrative, and can just wallow in ecstasy.

Happy confession 2: when that documentary comes out, I am going to watch it to death.

Other trivia: I used to work on St Katharine's Dock next to Tower Bridge in London. After being flattened during the Blitz (St K's was where very high value cargo was stored - silks, feathers, that sort of thing. Went up a treat, apparently), it was rebuilt as a posh marina in the 70s, and reopened at around the time of Queen Liz II's silver jubilee. There is a large block of perspex bolted to one of the buildings, with a crown eroded out of it. At the time, it was the largest sculpture made from perspex - and was made from the original monolith. Kubrick's first idea was to have that transparent, but he found out early on that this was impossible to light so ditched Monolith Mark 1 and went for the trendy matt black option. The Mark 1 knocked around in stores for a while, and then got repurposed to celebrate what seemed like a big deal at the time.

It's mounted just too high up to touch.

I tried.
posted by Devonian at 4:02 PM on September 8, 2010 [10 favorites]


After I saw 2001 in 70 mm I decided never to watch it on video again. Its one of the few movies that I can name that really is completely altered if you see it on a tv.
posted by Omon Ra at 4:06 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I remember taking a VHS copy of 2001 to watch over at my high school girlfriend's house, and my mom stopping me and saying "why don't you bring over something that a girl would like?"

Oh, mom!
posted by danny the boy at 4:13 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Many of these "promotional photos" look suspiciously like framegrabs from a 720p video transfer.

Probably my favorite cinema experience was seeing 2001 in glorious 70mm Panavision at my local boutique theater. Magnificent detail. You know those tiny incidental texts in the film, like the instructions for the zero-gravity toilet, or the disclaimers under "CAUTION EXPLOSIVE BOLTS" on the space pods? They're actually legible at 70mm...

(The original soundtrack LP has some nice photos in the liner, too.)
posted by neckro23 at 4:15 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


72ppi is not hi-rez, I don't care how large you make the pic.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:17 PM on September 8, 2010


Great post! I think the 2:1 images in the gallery are just SD screen caps from the DVD, and the other hires images are the set stills. Thanks for posting this.
posted by gallois at 4:20 PM on September 8, 2010


I think a strong argument can be made that, 40 years and several James Cameron blockbusters later, there still hasn't been a more technologically ambitious effects film.

I dunno. I don't mean any of this to knock 2001 or Trumbull's work.

Star Wars may be a really cheesy movie, but the Dykstraflex was really revolutionary. IIRC, and I haven't read stuff about this for ages, it was software motion-control that made the difference between being able to put Discovery against a starry backdrop and make it fly past and having really dynamic shots of spaceships (or whatever) that did something other than move in a stately straight line. It made the difference between what are sort of establishing shots and shots with some real life in them.

You could also put Blade Runner up against 2001, though it's excellent in a quieter way. Taking motion-control out of the vacuum of space, and putting the Spinner into a crowded urban environment where there were always a bunch of different lights shining onto it and things reflecting onto it and they were all also moving in relation to the Spinner, that was ambitious.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:23 PM on September 8, 2010


Google's Life photo archive has a bunch of this sort of thing.
posted by gubo at 4:28 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Blaaaah, it's full of teal and orange!!
posted by gorgor_balabala at 4:30 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh give me a break with the teal and orange brigade.

If the color of white people's skin + the color of the sky is some forsaken movie trope, then I guess we just should give up now.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 4:34 PM on September 8, 2010


LIFE photos = fantastic = never seen the astronauts with the chest plates off!

+ cheers charlie don't surf for the info re: corn straw suck blowback = am relieved.
posted by jettloe at 4:57 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


After I saw 2001 in 70 mm I decided never to watch it on video again.

Ah, but did you see it in the original Cinerama format?
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:59 PM on September 8, 2010


LIFE photos = fantastic = never seen the astronauts with the chest plates off!

Wow, check out the IBM logo on the wrist controls.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:06 PM on September 8, 2010


One of the great sadnesses of my life is that my father SWEARS he took me to see 2001 in Cinerama in New York... And i have no memory of it whatsoever. It's one of my three or four most favorite films.

Then again, knowing my father? He's probably just fucking with me.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 5:10 PM on September 8, 2010


+ cheers charlie don't surf for the info re: corn straw suck blowback = am relieved.

Well you know technically it was a blooper but they found an explanation that covered their ass.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:13 PM on September 8, 2010


As I understand it, 2001 was shot with a Cinerama lens, but not in the Cinerama format.
posted by Omon Ra at 5:28 PM on September 8, 2010


Oh give me a break with the teal and orange brigade.
Ah don't worry, I'm not desecrating the memory of Stanley Kubrick, just having a bit of fun without taking you by the three hands and cautiously pointing it out first.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 5:43 PM on September 8, 2010


yup. can't unsee the teal and orange :P
posted by liza at 5:46 PM on September 8, 2010


I somehow went 30 years without seeing this film (saw it when I was 10 or so and fell asleep), while also reading every bit of sci-fi I could get my hands on. I saw it last week on bluray on a pretty big screen, and I literally couldn't take my eyes off of it. What an amazing-looking piece of filmmaking... parts of the beginning sequence are really the best shots of landscapes ever captured, imo.

It's strange seeing the ape costumes, which I'm sure were considered great at the time, because they just don't fit into the artistry of the rest of the film.

The space station, too... no one has even come close, at least that I've seen. The way the floor slopes into the distance, every frigging detail is just amazingly done.

It makes what passes for sci fi film these days practically unwatchable. I have high hopes for the Alfonso Cuaron film, Gravity.
posted by Huck500 at 5:50 PM on September 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's strange seeing the ape costumes, which I'm sure were considered great at the time, because they just don't fit into the artistry of the rest of the film.

In one of his memoir-ish books or afterwords or something, Clarke complains jovially about Planet of the Apes winning a special award for the makeup. "What do they think we did? Engineer ape-men?"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:45 PM on September 8, 2010


It makes what passes for sci fi film these days practically unwatchable.

I did enjoy Moon, though.
posted by Huck500 at 7:41 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


re: watching on VHS = 2001 used to be on Netflix's Watch Instantly - and that's not too bad - except it was in cropped 4x3
posted by jettloe at 7:42 PM on September 8, 2010



It's strange seeing the ape costumes, which I'm sure were considered great at the time, because they just don't fit into the artistry of the rest of the film.


I think they come off very well. I was searching for corroboration of the "story" that 2001 didn't win an Oscar for best make up due to the Academy not believing the apes were human actors (which isn't true, as it turns out), when I came across this little gem of a detail from the film:
The full text of the Zero Gravity Toilet Instructions: ZERO GRAVITY TOILET PASSENGERS ARE ADVISED TO READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE - 1. The toilet is of the standard zero-gravity type. Depending on requirements, System A and/or System B can be used, details of which are clearly marked in the toilet compartment. When operating System A, depress lever and a plastic dalkron eliminator will be dispensed through the slot immediately underneath. When you have fastened the adhesive lip, attach connection marked by the large "X" outlet hose. Twist the silver coloured ring one inch below the connection point until you feel it lock. - 2. The toilet is now ready for use. The Sonovac cleanser is activated by the small switch on the lip. When securing, twist the ring back to its initial-condition, so that the two orange lines meet. Disconnect. Place the dalkron eliminator in the vacuum receptacle to the rear. Activate by pressing the blue button. - 3. The controls for System B are located on the opposite wall. The red release switch places the uroliminator into position; it can be adjusted manually up or down by pressing the blue manual release button. The opening is self adjusting. To secure after use, press the green button which simultaneously activates the evaporator and returns the uroliminator to its storage position. - 4. You may leave the lavatory if the green exit light is on over the door. If the red light is illuminated, one of the lavatory facilities is not properly secured. Press the "Stewardess" call button on the right of the door. She will secure all facilities from her control panel outside. When green exit light goes on you may open the door and leave. Please close the door behind you. - 5. To use the Sonoshower, first undress and place all your clothes in the clothes rack. Put on the velcro slippers located in the cabinet immediately below. Enter the shower. On the control panel to your upper right upon entering you will see a "Shower seal" button. Press to activate. A green light will then be illuminated immediately below. On the intensity knob select the desired setting. Now depress the Sonovac activation lever. Bathe normally. - 6. The Sonovac will automatically go off after three minutes unless you activate the "Manual off" over-ride switch by flipping it up. When you are ready to leave, press the blue "Shower seal" release button. The door will open and you may leave. Please remove the velcro slippers and place them in their container. - 7. If the red light above this panel is on, the toilet is in use. When the green light is illuminated you may enter. However, you must carefully follow all instructions when using the facilities during coasting (Zero G) flight. Inside there are three facilities: (1) the Sonowasher, (2) the Sonoshower, (3) the toilet. All three are designed to be used under weightless conditions. Please observe the sequence of operations for each individual facility. - 8. Two modes for Sonowashing your face and hands are available, the "moist-towel" mode and the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaner mode. You may select either mode by moving the appropriate lever to the "Activate" position. If you choose the "moist-towel" mode, depress the indicated yellow button and withdraw item. When you have finished, discard the towel in the vacuum dispenser, holding the indicated lever in the "active" position until the green light goes on... showing that the rollers have passed the towel completely into the dispenser. If you desire an additional towel, press the yellow button and repeat the cycle. - 9. If you prefer the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaning mode, press the indicated blue button. When the twin panels open, pull forward by rings A & B. For cleaning the hands, use in this position. Set the timer to positions 10, 20, 30 or 40... indicative of the number of seconds required. The knob to the left, just below the blue light, has three settings, low, medium or high. For normal use, the medium setting is suggested. - 10. After these settings have been made, you can activate the device by switching to the "ON" position the clearly marked red switch. If during the washing operation, you wish to change the settings, place the "manual off" over-ride switch in the "OFF" position. you may now make the change and repeat the cycle.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 7:57 PM on September 8, 2010 [4 favorites]


So, when I was probably 16 or 17, the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor began doing a Kubrick retrospective, showing restored prints of all of Kubrick movies for two to three week runs. When I heard this, I found myself driven by a single goal - to drop acid and go see 2001.

You would think this plan was fairly foolproof, but it was not without its hazards. Procuring the acid was easy at the time, but not 20 minutes before showtime I had already started tripping when I copped stopped me en route to the movie and ticketed me for riding my skateboard in a part of town that was zoned for no skateboards.

Now, in any normal circumstance, this would bring on a trip so bad that I would be telling you a story about how I spent a weekend in the county psychiatric hospital, but for one thing: I had been busted by Officer Friendly. Officer Friendly [not his real name, of course. His real name is lost to the ages] was a University of Michigan graduate, who, by his own admission could have gotten a much higher paying job were it not that a professor had given him some philosophical challenge which involved becoming a public servant and he "rose to the occasion by becoming a cop." He was about as apologetic and kind as a cop can be whenever he had to bother us and while I can't speak for my peers, I trusted him more than I trusted my parents or my teachers.

He pulled me into the little makeshift booking room that the Ann Arbor police had built in a parking structure downtown, and after writing me a ticket, pulled out a polaroid camera and asked me to stand against the wall.

"Some kid on a skateboard knocked over a woman and her daughter the other day, and the little girl bit through her bottom lip. Rather than seeing if they were all right, the kid just swore at them and took off, so we're taking pictures of skaters."

(Me, glistening with sweat, pupils dilated, skewed smile.) "Uh...ok"

"You wanna hold your ticket and your board in the picture?"

"Sure!"

What I wouldn't give for a copy of that polaroid.

I made it to the movie with just seconds to spare, and Allan and me sat in the front row with our legs propped up on the brass railings in the front row. I had seen the movie plenty of times, but during this particular screening, I became convinced that the neanderthals at the dawn of man were all extremeties of a single great organism at war with itself as it evolved. I kept trying to explain it to Allan by whispering to him "They're like finger puppets, but if finger puppets were alive!" and he eventually hissed at me to shut up.

I went in to the movie fully expecting the Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite section to be the part that most engaged me while on acid, but it wasn't. In fact, the part I found most gripping were the scenes when Dave Bowman was floating around in his spacesuit trying to deactivate HAL. There's about 20 solid minutes in which all you can hear is Dave's labored, heavy spacesuit breathing. It's very easy to unconsciously find yourself breathing in concert with Dave, and, at least when you're on acid, there's a very palpable fear that should Dave stop breathing, there's a decent chance that you could stop breathing yourself.

It was an overwhelming experience, which while I'm glad I experienced it, I found myself relieved to be done with after it was all over.

After the movie, me and Allan walked to a diner where we began discussing the meaning of the movie. While we argued about it, a drunk homeless guy walked by and said "2001? Are you talking about 2001?"

We both hesitated. "Yes..."

"You wanna know what it's about?"

"Yes."

He paused, and then said, haltingly "It's about - ... whether man and machine ... can ... replace ... woman and child." And then he walked away. To this day, it seems as good an explanation as any.
posted by orville sash at 8:39 PM on September 8, 2010 [21 favorites]


These pics may be small for regular high-res standards, but the landscape pics make dandy desktop backgrounds for netbooks.

Love the rotating background option, love it so much
posted by Spatch at 9:25 PM on September 8, 2010


oh my goodness check out this photo from the LIFE collection, (search string: Kubrick)
posted by jettloe at 9:27 PM on September 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's the attention to and prioritization of detail and beauty over spectacle. That's why no one really talks about Avatar or Lord of the Rings, etc. but people still fawn over 2001 and Blade Runner. It's not a coincidence that films like these have held up so remarkably over time.

I agree with you that detail is the key to how well 2001 and Blade Runner have held up. But I disagree that this doesn't apply to Lord of the Rings as well. If you've ever watched the DVD bonus features - especially in the 4-disc sets - you'll know that there were insane amounts of detail - some of which didn't even appear on screen. I suspect only the 8-hour Russian version of War and Peace can rival it as a sheer feat of film production logistics.

I'll leave any defense of Avatar to others.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:44 PM on September 8, 2010


Sure, but LOTR does have a lot of "eh good enough-ness," especially with the size doubles. Here's Frito walking up to Gandalf, and now *cut* Gandalf is putting his hand on the shoulder of a little-person who doesn't resemble Elijah Wood in any way including vague body shape. Or, alternately, Frodo is walking up to tall, skinny Gandalf, but he meets a huge hulking person who's about twice as wide as Gandalf.

Avatar seems likely to be like Star Wars: remembered as a hokey movie but a pretty stunning technical achievement, especially once realizing that level of integration of CGI and live action becomes as cheap and easy as motion-control did by the mid 90s.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:44 AM on September 9, 2010


I want this documentary to be out NOW.
posted by yeti at 6:50 AM on September 9, 2010


Wow, check out the IBM logo on the wrist controls.

I forget who clued me into this but it sploded my mind.

Take each letter of IBM and move it back one step. You'd have, let's see, H... A... L...
posted by Babblesort at 7:51 AM on September 9, 2010


Kubrick and Clarke both denied that was the origin of HAL's name. Clarke said that it was short for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer.

Incidentally, IBM co-operated on the movie for a while until they realized that the computer goes crazy and kills everyone. This was before product placement was common and companies learned to read (and sometimes rewrite) the screenplay before they agree to work on the movie.
posted by octothorpe at 8:28 AM on September 9, 2010


RE: HAL and IBM

There is a scene in the novel 2010: Odyssey Two where the computer scientist Dr. Chandra denies the connection between the two. Arthur C. Clarke included that specifically because of all the times he was asked about it. He went on to note that he would have changed it had it occurred to him prior to the film and book's releases.

Source: the foreward to 2061, I believe.
posted by zooropa at 10:51 AM on September 9, 2010


I have some bad news hive minders of a Kubrick persuasion. That Trumbull documentary will probably never see the light of day - the NFT here in London recently flew over Mr. Trumbull to give a fascinating talk about 2001 prior to a fantastic screening of the film and during the subsequent Q&A he revealed that the sacred 17 minutes of missing footage from the original 1968 premiere recently surfaced. This is pure speculation on his part but he remarked that Warner Brothers co-operation with the documentary immediately ceased and he thinks that they are planning some sort of 'directors cut' re-release or horror of horrors - a 3D conversion. Full disclosure - my report here from my blog.
posted by Mintyblonde at 12:13 PM on September 9, 2010


...a 3D conversion

Holy hell, I don't have words to say what an abomination that would be. I could feel my blood pressure jump about twenty points as I read that. WTF Warner?!
posted by octothorpe at 6:29 AM on September 10, 2010


Oh and as for the missing footage, it would be great to see as an extra on a Blu-Ray release but Kubrick deleted it for a reason. He always kept editing right until the general release of a movie, that was his process and he pulled those scenes because they didn't work and didn't add to the movie. Why don't they go ahead and add back the narration while they're at it and put in some more sound effects, space is way too quiet in that movie. Maybe they could use CG and give the astronauts a furry alien space pet to liven things up a little. Gahhh.
posted by octothorpe at 6:36 AM on September 10, 2010


I found myself driven by a single goal - to drop acid and go see 2001.

Trust me, folks...Tron was much better on acid than 2001. Oh, my, yes.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:46 PM on September 10, 2010


I know this may sound far fetched, but I did a double feature of Tron and The Dark Crystal on acid around that time as well. It might have been that it was on the small screen, but it just didn't do it for me like 2k1.
posted by orville sash at 4:10 PM on September 10, 2010


I did handle it a lot better than this guy did, apparently.
posted by orville sash at 5:46 AM on September 13, 2010


Well, jeez, even going to Steak and Shake in Galesburg, Illinois is better on acid. But I don't recommend the trip.

Or so I've been told.

Also

...a 3D conversion

I've not gotten on the 3D hate bandwagon that many have. I've, in fact, enjoyed the recent films I've seen that way. But this idea = not okay. My "purists are usually just being snobs" line is set way lower (higher? whichever agrees with the statement) than most people who care a lick about movies, but this crosses it. Way crosses it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older I laughed, but then I cried.   |   Quantum Chess! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post