17 lost minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey FOUND!

Biggins

http://blastr.com/2010/12/-17-lost-minutes-of-2001.php

17 lost minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey FOUND!

In the process of producing their now-canceled documentary on Stanley Kubrick's landmark film, Douglas Trumbull and David Larson have uncovered 17 minutes that Kubrick cut from 2001 just after release—in perfect condition.
While in Toronto to screen a 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Trumbull gave a presentation that showed off a number of never-before-seen images from the Kubrick production that will make their way into Trumbull and Larson's behind-the-scenes photo book, now that Warner has pulled the plug on their ambitious documentary, 2001: Behind the Infinite—The Making of a Masterpiece.
He also let slip that Warner Brothers has recently found, buried in a salt-mine vault in Kansas, 17 minutes of edited footage that Kubrick cut from 2001 shortly after its initial release—and that this footage is perfectly preserved.
Trumbull told the audience that he has no idea what Warner plans to do with the footage

Dempsey

Why does Warner Bros. have a salt-mine vault??

mike65

Kubrick edited the film down after its debut as it dragged in the middle, no point in throwing it back in for the sake of it.

FarmerGreen

Dempsey wrote: »

Why does Warner Bros. have a salt-mine vault??

Even temperature, secure, wont catch fire, sounds ideal.

krudler

Dempsey wrote: »

Why does Warner Bros. have a salt-mine vault??

Its where they keep all the unsold copies of Batman and Robin.

Phony Scott

Biggins wrote: »

17 lost minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey FOUND!

I'm almost 100% sure that there was a documentary about ten maybe fifteen years ago hosted by James Cameron which showed most if not all the missing footage. Surely that footage has been around for some time, its just that the DP came across better quality footage recently, so it's hardly lost footage.

FarmerGreen

Rumour has it that Stanley ran out of money half way through shooting.
Thats why the second half is crap.

bonerm

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Rumour has it that Stanley ran out of money half way through shooting.
Thats why the second half is crap.

Yeah the second half could have done with more explosions and titty.

Nolanger

Here's what I don't get: Why didn't they rerelease the sequel 2010 in the cinemas this year?

bonerm

Nolanger wrote: »

Here's what I don't get: Why didn't they rerelease the sequel 2010 in the cinemas this year?

Because it's crap.

FarmerGreen

Mad magazine did a send up the original called '201 minutes of space idiocy'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mad's_movie_spoofs

krudler

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Rumour has it that Stanley ran out of money half way through shooting.
Thats why the second half is crap.

:eek:

even the stargate sequence? unplugging HAL? some of the best scenes in cinema history

FarmerGreen

That Kaliedoscope sequence went on for ever.
HAL was based on Marvin Minsky an artificial intelligence 'expert', as was Marvin the paranoid android in the hitchhikers guide.
Boring voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNWVvZi3HX8&feature=related

mike65

You are really adding something to the film board.

---

2010 isn't crap, I used to think it was just okay but I now watch it on its own terms and I think it works well.

BostonB

2001 is one film that does not need to be made longer. TBH if they said they had lost 17 mins out of the original that would be better.

Sad Professor

There's a reason that Kubrick burned his outtakes, but 2001 is one of my favourite films, so I'd love to see this longer version released in some form. Kubrick was infamous for making cuts post-release in response to reviews. He cut about 30 minutes off The Shining after the US release. In that case I think the shorter version is probably superior, but I'm glad that we still have the longer version. It would be nice to have the longer cut of 2001 as well.

johnny_ultimate

As a curiosity watch, I'd like to see it, although I saw the film in the IFI last year so I was happy enough to see it on the big screen so wouldn't be too pushed either way.

The Metropolis cut this year was different - that was the director's preferred version, and a great opportunity. If Kubrick actually cut this stuff happily, than perhaps it doesn't need to be reintegrated, though it would be nice to see for comparisons.

Dempsey

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Even temperature, secure, wont catch fire, sounds ideal.

is that an attempt at a serious answer?

mikhail

Dempsey wrote: »

is that an attempt at a serious answer?

Is that an attempt at a serious question?

MagicMarker

BostonB wrote: »

2001 is one film that does not need to be made longer. TBH if they said they had lost 17 mins out of the original that would be better.

I concur.

Biggins

Not sure I'd want the original altered but I'd be interested to see the extra minutes.
Even if just to see if it would have altered the story in anyway.

Sad Professor

As Phony Scott suggested earlier, it seems this footage has always been around. Warners have released a statement saying they have no plans to release it:

The additional footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey has always existed in the Warner vaults. When [director Stanley] Kubrick trimmed the 17 minutes from 2001 after the NY premiere, he made it clear the shortened version was his final edit. The film is as he wanted it to be presented and preserved and Warner Home Video has no plans to expand or revise Mr. Kubrick's vision.

Source

FarmerGreen

Seeing as how he paid for the production costs out of his own pocket it's not surprising he had control over the artistic content.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that one

Sad Professor

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Seeing as how he paid for the production costs out of his own pocket it's not surprising he had control over the artistic content.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that one

No, Warner Bros footed the bill. Kubrick had made Spartacus which was a huge hit, as was Dr. Strangelove. And in later years his output was so small and his reputation so great that they pretty much handed him a blank cheque within reason. But Kubrick was very good at handling the finances on his films. He used small crews and got people to work for very little which is how he was able to shoot for months and months on his later films.

FarmerGreen

Never knew that. Charismatic lying old scrote.
Probably explains why he had dozens enthusiastic kids running around after him at chidwickbury.