Yes, you experienced 2001 in Cinerama. I also saw 2001 in Cinerama in 1968. Most fantastic experience. I was 13 and the movie literally changed my worldview. I became a spacecraft communications engineer in no small part to the space program and the movie 2001.

It still is!

I agree re CGI vs practical effects, although it should be noted that many scenes in Kubrick's film, similar to the ones shown in the video, never show the spacecraft or space station set directly "atop" certain backgrounds because the SFX process involved would have otherwise created an annoying and very visible "aura" around the object being overlaid on what showed in the background. This is where CGI could have stepped in to erase the "aura". Smart directors these days (I'm thinking Christopher Nolan here) use what's best for realism. He was lauded for his brilliant use of practical effects in Dunkirk... but he also applied some CGI and in a way that you wouldn't notice it.

Remember though, this is just one guy doing this on his home machine - a real production would have a couple dozen (minimum) artists working on a shot like this.

You're going by this? Seriously?

Vals is slow exquisit in space wonder full sound

Me too. Back in 1968!

@@craigw.scribner6490 I saw it when I was about 9. Part of me was all " WTF ? ", but I took a step into a larger universe to quote Ben Kenobi.

Same here. My brother, I think still has the promotional programme.

Kubrick was looking at returning to the sci-fi genre and was always asking Spielberg about developments in CGI. He had amassed a lot of pre-production material for the film "AI," which he died before making. We can't say the film was what Kubrick was headed for, but a lot of the pre-production design was "in the can" at the time of his death. Adam Savage has said his work on the submerged remains of New York was done from Kubrick's work, not Spielberg's. Best wishes from Vermont!

I assume that James Cameron is basically the CGI perfectionist equivalent of our time.

@@user-do5zk6jh1k HAHA Funny. You need to look at directors like Brad Bird and Takashi Yamazaki for real cutting edge CGI beyond bad overlong boring pointless video game cut scenes in low-grade junk movies with fabricated garbage communist government media accounting. The Incredibles and Parasyte come to immediate mind for superior CGI and moviemaking in general.

Jesus nobody had topped what they achieved

@@TheStockwell but, sadly, Kubrick opted to try to out the Globalists with “Eyes Wide Shut” which ended him.

Gen X & Y consider things such as to be archaic even though they were talking about the future.

Pan Am went from owning their own colossal skyscraper perched on top of Park Avenue to a bunch of used flight bags and memories.

@@billolsen4360 " Flyin' High in April. Shot Down in May ".....

Thank you very much.

i guess I am quite randomly asking but does anyone know a good website to watch new tv shows online ?

@Marcel Casey i use FlixZone. You can find it on google :)

@Jaylen Yousef Yea, I have been watching on FlixZone for since april myself =)

@Jaylen Yousef thank you, I signed up and it seems to work :D I really appreciate it!

I saw it as an 8 year old at the Travis Air Force Base movie theater around that same time.

My parents paid the rare expense to see it at the Cinerama. I was too young to appreciate the story, but was excited by the whole "space" thing nonetheless. The centrifuge living space in Discovery was amazing.

Thank you very much.

With the right textures and models and a decent renderer you wouldn't even know the difference.

I, too, always wondered why Kubrick allowed those. And they had the 3D models of the various satellites! Given all the astounding model work in the rest of the film, why did they resort to 2D cutouts for the first few major space shots?

I must say the orbiting nuclear bombs are better defined here than in the original.

What do you mean that is the Original 😮

The view of earth and the moon were better here than with the original. The miniatures they used on the original had more definition than this CGI.

Kubricks did it better imo, not saying this is bad but its too perfect too clean looking

Thank you very much.

Thank you. It was my original idea to duplicate all the space scenes, but only got this far. May pick up on it a bit later.

I don't think it would have improved anything he did.

Actually , 1968 , with 2001 , modern special effects had arrived. Beautifully done and consistent through the whole movie.

To be honest, sometimes practical effects will be a lot better than CGI, because human got some very sensitive eyes that can recognize if something is real or not. 2001’s visual is not perfect, the lighting is not exactly right and the planets are painted, that’s why it looks a little plain and has no movement. Despite that, with the help of many talented visual artists they managed to render the whole scene beautifully without too much things that trigger our eyes to find something unusual. However, today’s production don’t really do practical effects anymore because it cost money. Nowadays movies have full of complex rendered CGI all over the place. It doesn’t feel the same when compare to the practical scene like this.

I thought his original effects looked a bit flatly lit--particularly the Space Station. And of course his depiction of the Earth was too much pale blue and not enough clouds.

I agree with you. I watched the very first showing from the 3rd row balcony on three screens. 13 years old and completely god-smacked. I would pay good money to watch that pristine 70mm film again.

So they are like MIRV platforms that are kept in orbit? The idea reminds me of Heinlein's book Space Cadet, In which one of the duties of the Patrol is to conduct maintenance on orbital nuclear weapons. In that book, they are individual nuclear bombs that are in orbit, rather than an orbital platform with multiple reentry vehicles.

I have no memory of that, but then again I never really looked. But your parallel with Homer's Odyssey is really excellent. Something that had never occurred to me to even try to think about. Cyclops, after all, consumed many of the crew with Odysseus, perhaps as one might consider HAL to have killed the sleeping hibernating crew of the Discovery.

I noticed the absence of atmosphere too. But I think that was also (incorrectly) missing in the original and maybe he wanted to remain faithful.

@@kempstonj Quite Remarkable Don't You Think When You Consider That Jupiter And It's Moons (Which Hadn't Been First Visited Prior To The Release Of The Film By Space Probes Like Pioneer 10 And Then Later By The Voyager-1 Probe Until A Few Years After The Film Was Released When We Got To See From These Deep Space Probes What These World's Actually Looked Like Compared To The Film Versions That Were Surprisingly Very Accurate Renditions!) That Appear in 2001 Were Imagined From The Minds Of The People In The Film's Art Department And From The Special Effects Technicians Like Brian Johnson Who Would Later Go On To Work On Space:1999 And Other Film Projects!!!