"....The Last Samurai, however, might work."

Speechless.

That is funny and sad.

Or A PERFECT MURDER or THE MAJESTIC. That would be awesome.

Unfrigginbelievable.

I would wager that most of the morons running WB today have not even seen 2001.

Besides they can't effectively market anything other than sequels that have been in the WB stable for years. They would have screwed up JAWS or RAIDERS had they released those films today. They should be bitch-slapped for how they treated AOJJ and MICHAEL CLAYTON. But then, I already said that in another post.

"The Last Samurai, however, might work."

Uggh. Gack.

Um, OK, I guess it has to be said. The Last Samurai quote isn't actually real.

Now watch...someone at WB will read these posts and actually, SERIOUSLY, suggest doing a Fifth Anniversary IMAX Special Edition of THE LAST SAMURAI.

I suppose he's right. No one under 30 goes to the movies. (?!!!)

And the depressing movie poll of the day comes from IMDB. When asked for their favorite performance in 12 Angry Men, the most popular response was "I have never watched the movie".

Ignorance of classic films is primarily the fault of the public who choose to ignore them, although the studios should try to remind the public a bit more often.

Releasing an IMAX version of the The Last Samurai, however, might work.

Thank you, Jeff. Very, very amusing.

Anyway, it wouldn't have to be IMAX, would it? Couldn't we just get a cleaned-up plain old 70mm re-release?

All this 'under 30s' stuff is Wells's own petty bias. Nobody in the real world talks in his patois of Walter Winchell and burned-out-hipster.

does anyone know how they got the animal to fall over like that?

Wells to Sweet Billy: They shot him in the head with...damn, now I forget. It was either a .22 caliber rifle or a high-powered pellet gun.

Think of how many people were playing Halo 3 over the weekend. Who's got time to see a movie about a guy named Michael Clayton? There's killing to be done.

Everybody does their best to avoid jury duty - why would they want to spend 2 hours watching the schlubs that didn't?

I think you mean Richard Strauss, your Holiness... The youngsters, much like your average Oscar Guru, don't know much about him either.

That is so sad. You'd think the fact that "no one under 30" knows about the movie is actually a GOOD reason to promote the classic for a whole new generation, get a buzz going.

Kubrick used music by two different Strausses (Strauss's? Straussen?) in 2001. Johann Strauss (the Vienna waltz king of the late 19th century) wrote The Blue Danube waltz used during the space station docking sequence. Richard Strauss (from Munich a generation later, no relation) wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra used during the monolith scenes.

I stopped taking seriously generalizations about people under 30 when I read some under-30 marketing fool tell a NY Times reporter a few years ago that "nobody in my generation drinks coffee for breakfast anymore."

According this bozo, everyone born after 1975 only drinks cola or Red Bull for breakfast. Yuck.

Marketing androids who generalize confidently about what people under 30 do or care about may drink bull for breakfast, but it ain't Red Bull.

I guess that wouldn't include the kid tearing tickets at the Grove who never heard of Michelle Pfeiffer.

"Think of how many people were playing Halo 3 over the weekend. Who's got time to see a movie about a guy named Michael Clayton? There's killing to be done."

C'mon Corey3rd, be fair-- I played Halo 3 over the weekend *AND* saw Michael Clayton.

No need to go all Jeff with the stereotyping there ;-)

And in 1968, 2001 is the film the youngsters were flocking too. In 2007 they flock to 300. Some kind of cultural regression, yes? No? Dave?

Christ, the Blade Runner re-release just made 200 grand in only 2 theaters! So that's just bullshit that they couldn't get any money out of IMAX screenings of "2001".

If anything, they'll either do a another 70mm presentation or a 4k digital. When I talked to Leon Vitali earlier in the year he was talking about a 2k test they did a few years ago that he thought looked amazing.

Oh, there's definitely cultural regression. But 1968 saw a lot of crappy movies, too. And remember that we are in the "blockbuster era"-- it's kind of hard to blame the egg (rubes) when the chicken (studios) is also at fault.

I love movies. I love *films*. But it's 2007, which means I also have what people in 1968 *didn't* have-- the internet, video games, multiple professional sports, etc. Oh, and there's also the old favorites "going outside," "reading a book," and "doing nothing."

Most of my friends don't go to the theater. They just wait for DVD. I'm a purist, I will always love the theater experience, but I can't blame a busy family of four for not wanting to truck to the theater to spend nearly a hundred bucks to see a movie every week. Jeff doesn't understand those people because he's not one of those people, and doesn't surround himself with those people. OF COURSE they're going to be enthralled with the concept of "event movies," because that's what gets them out of the house to the theater.

You and I and every one on this board well know that the theater is friendly to all kinds of movies-- intense dramas, crowd-pleasing comedies, etc. But most people don't think that way-- they think, "The only films worth getting me out to the theater on a weekend is something that requires a big movie screen to truly appreciate, i.e. Transformers." They aren't going there for the plot, they're going there for the spectacle-- the same spectacle that drew all those LSD-trippin' youngsters to 2001 in 1968.

Trouble is, as spectacle, 2001 ain't Transformers-- it's that movie that AMC plays every three months, the boring one with the killer computer. People 30 and under today don't care to see it in the theater because A) it *ain't playing* in the theater, and B) they don't even bother to go to the theater unless it's advertised to death.

Pardon one last tangent-- I'm *dying* to see the new cut of Blade Runner in the theater, but I can't, because the powers that be continue to insist that there are no film lovers worth a damn outside of L.A. and NYC. So, even though I personally know half-a-dozen people here that would go with me to see it, and I know that I'd be able to recommend it to everyone I know, I can't do it because the studios don't bother to promote this stuff outside of those two shitburgs. I mean, it's not like Washington D.C. is flyover country-- we have the AFI here, we have some good one-screens here, etc.

Thus, I follow this little tiff about 2001 with some bemusement, because even if Warner Bros. saw fit to put this out again in theaters, what are the odds this ends up outside of NYC and LA? 10%? Out of a 10% chance they bother to show it all?

I loved living in L.A., for the very reason every film lover loves living there-- you don't know how good you've got it until you have to deal with the rest of America's viewing habits.

Dave>> Excellent rant. I'm a former D.C. guy who eventually ended up in LA solely for the reason that I wanted to be around movies.

"Ignorance of classic films is primarily the fault of the public who choose to ignore them, although the studios should try to remind the public a bit more often."

I think it's more the fault of the current state of television. Sometimes the public chooses to ignore the classics, but I think more and more often, as every new generation comes along, the public doesn't even KNOW these movies exist. When I was growing up, you had a WAY better chance of running across movies like "12 Angry Men" than you do now. The network affiliates had them, independent stations had them, public broadcasting had them -hell, even AMC used to have them. Yeah, you can see this stuff on Turner Classic Movies or something, but, to use a city analogy, these movies used to be part of the main drag and now you've got them out in the boonies of the cable/satellite lineups. Sure, they're in a better building and they're cleaner and crisper, but what (average) kid is going to wander out to the sticks of channel 200-and-whatever-the-hell-it-is to find them?

I got to discover Patrick McGoohan's "The Prisoner" on my CBS affiliate, the Marx Brothers and Buster Keaton on American Movie Classics, "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner" on A&E, and Alastair Sim's version of "A Christmas Carol" on local channel 10. All because on a given day I was flipping through a few channels - not hundreds of them. And what I'd find on these channels in their place today is an info-mercial, "Cliffhanger" with Sylvester Stallone, "CSI Miami" or a rerun of "Dog the Bounty Hunter", and Spanish language programming.

The casual presence of classic movies and television is either gone or ghetto'd onto TV Land and TCM. And if the parents aren't actively seeking these channels out, the kids don't stand much of a chance. Yeah, a handful will reach out for it, but the rest are lost and don't even know it (or care. and understandably so).

Validation!!! YES!!! I hate this fucking movie!!! All you losers you love it can suck on this. I was right you were wrong. Horrible movie, overrated, jsut like christian's mom!

Take a stress pill, Mallet.

Nemo,

I've heard a number of kids (usually computer-geek types) say that they drink Mountain Dew or some other such rot in order to rouse themselves. This is one of the most disgusting things I can imagine. It's worse than drinking pre-ground coffee from cans (or plastic tubs, or whatever it comes in now) or even that instant stuff that dissolves in hot water. It's worse than pumpkin peppermint chai soy lattes with candy sprinkles and chemical whip on top. How could anyone stomach that shit upon waking up?

These fuckers are fucking mutants. We live in an Omega Man world.

Red Bull? Fuck that shit! PEETS!

"Validation!!! YES!!! I hate this fucking movie!!! All you losers you love it can suck on this. I was right you were wrong. Horrible movie, overrated, jsut like christian's mom!"

What an idiot.