Oh, I know you!

oh shit its you!

@@wheezybrownbear7708 Yes, it is he!

IT'S YOU!!

I KNOW YOU

That's not completely correct. There's one scene that's a bit fucky. When Dr. Floyd is travelling to the moon, his tray of food floats away in a way that makes it really obvious that it's suspended from wires.

@@GeoStreber also throw in pretty much anything on the moon, billowing clouds on landing, really poor movement from astronauts on EVA.

Those multi-colored shots of the grand canyon in the end aren't much either

@@GeoStreber Almost ALL the zero-G stuff is like that. The way the flight attendant walks on the shuttle to the space station is contrived. The floating pen that she retrives looks pretty fake, too. Ditto for the scenes of spavce ships manouvering and landing. A lot of this though is because audiences back then didn't know what space travel whas supposed to look like. They'd never seen it (for the most part -- there was a *small* amount of video from NASA aired on the nightly news from time to time,) so the audiences at the time had no frame of reference to judge the movie by.

Considering it was filmed in '66, it's still impressive.

Imagine, Planet of the Apes was made in the same year.

Alien technology

No it was made in 2001 read the title

@@samrowe2889 Someone finally gets it 😂

Random House reprinted the Making Of paperback a few decades ago. Kubrick was an innovator on cinematic technology.

PointyTailofSatan BTW, the miniature spacecraft shots were done with single framing (stop motion) to eliminate vibration artifacts when the spacecraft appears in motion.

You see almost the same effect when someone takes video from their helmet, or riding on their bike ... the camera and reference vibrate together so you do not really see it at all. Even when someone is doing a podcast with a camera in their hands, vibration kind of cancels out.

Uh, that's not it, I'm sure. A camera that is handheld or attached to a person's body typically vibrates (unless you have some sort of stabilizing rig), and if nothing is done, the video will look shaky. However, modern consumer cameras have image stabilization. They crop down the picture a bit from the raw picture, moving the cropped frame to cancel fast global motion. It's not too unlike what the maker of _this_ video did, just translation instead of rotation, entirely automated, and it never goes beyond the raw frame.

@@fllthdcrb Ever see someone walking with a selfie stick ... it looks almost artificial and weird. I did not say the camera was attached to anyone's body, it was attached to the main hall and the hall was started up as the hub was begun rotating - just as the two astronauts put one foot on the hub section. They had to doctor the film to remove a few frames where the rotation starts and stop.

Aside from the camera rigs, apparently, you could also have gotten low-jitter film stock that had a more stable frame across the shutter/gate compared to regular film stocks; Kubrick preferred to use these pricier film stocks in the future, even for non-SFX-heavy content. Also, you can tell the camera axis and rotation axis in this shot are not lined up precisely, now that the picture is stabilized. And as far as the miniatures, that wasn't stop-motion, as you can still see some motion blur. They actually used an early motion control rig, using analog computers instead of digital ones.

Sounds like you haven't been thinking hard enough if you still haven't figured it out after 40+ years. It's not immediately obvious, with even a rudimentary understanding of SFX would lead you to figure it out in a few hours tops.

You've been studying this for 40+ years and that's what you came up with? Jesus Christ lmao

​​@@suedeB05 Watch your mouth mister.😉

​@@HOTD108_ wow you are so intelligent lol

Have you studied them or simply wondered about them? There's a difference lol

That's Kubrick's perfectionism. That is why this film will NEVER look outdated.

Wars Boerse It already looks dated & has for some time now. This particular scene, all of the "scientific types" immediately figured it out...the weightless scenes with the Velcro shoes smacks of a blatant compromise & capitulation. We now know the easiest way to traverse from point A to B is a "Superman weightless glide", not this undoubtedly clumsy & inefficient "walking". Ron Howard knew this all too well when he created Apollo 13...the weightless scenes had to be "perfect"...so he did actual weightlessness.

Floating would require many handholds, and also padding everywhere to prevent hitting one's head, etc. Using velcro or magnetic based flooring could actually be more efficient.

according to kubrick,the screen of the hall or the device in which you are watching the movie is actually the monolith

Try running it at quarter speed... you STILL cannot see the transition. Damn.

That's why they use AI

It is pretty rare in my experience too. I can't stand they keep recommending videos I have watched 10 years ago, or videos on topics that I am looking at, but that are old and stale. And what is really bad is that they don't bother to enhance, fix or update their interface - and they let so many trolls in.

they had to have cut frames between the two references while one sections stopped and the other section started rotating.

When they do this they have to doctor the film to remove the frames where the transition is taking place.

@@justgivemethetruth Not possible because then the movement of the actors would pop since frames were missing.

@@djanitatiana I think this is explained in the making of 2001

@@justgivemethetruth OK Ill have to check that out. I work in visual effects with a background in editing so I would be really surprised if I missed it. But I'm always be prepared to be proven wrong.

Thanks for he information! I knew it was filmed vertically, but not all of the other details.

I might also point out that the hallway is meant to be in the center shaft that you see in the Centrifuge set...so that's why it's round and not some other shape. The padding is done to protect the astronauts moving through it. There were also some closer shots done during the filming of HAL's eye at the end of the set while it was rotating and these were to be used when the hibernating crew was dead and Bowman was locked out of the ship...during a sequence called: "HAL takes over". The lighting was practical...so the film was shot with the lighting from the hallway and the lighting positions where they get on the rotating part of the Centrifuge. Also, there were shots done as a reverse of looking from HAL's POV toward the Command Module...you see it during the early shots from the introduction of the "Jupiter Mission" where Bowman is coming toward the camera. This was shot separate and composited with a close up of HAL's eye in imply this was a reflection of HAL's eye in the Hublink.

I commend you on your knowledge. This is really interesting - I love the fact you know the actual date this was shot. Kind of makes it all the more special. Being a huge fan of this film, I love this stuff.

Enjoyed your post very much :-)

But what snacks did they serve on set?

Phil Rabe The SFX in it are *still* impressive, that's what gets me.

Yes. This kind of stuff is why, as a kid in the '80s and '90s, I wanted so badly to make movies. The fun of MAKING, with hands and bodies and objects and spaces. By the end of the '90s, so much The Making Of stuff about spectacular effects in the new movies was all "And here's someone sitting in front of a desktop computer, clicking a mouse. See the wireframe on the screen? Yeah. That's pretty much it." I'm not saying it takes no effort to make good CGI. But I never wanted to get into movies to sit at a computer. Get out there with cameras and squibs and cranes and smoke machines and lights and all-that's what I wanted. Nowadays everything, and therefore nothing, is spectacular.

it really is seriously impressive

It wouldn't actually have happened _instantly,_ as this video implies. It takes a finite amount of time to go from rotating to non-rotating in this Universe. Since, in the final shot, we can see that the relative rotation is constant, the really clever part is how they hid the acceleration. My guess would be that, as well as the two parts rotating relative to one another, the whole rig is contrarotating to begin with and the brakes are applied as the actors step over the threshold.

Your dad would really like Inception

Inception is crap.

My thought exactly. The change over is so smooth and imperceptible.

genius was a Kubrick.

was Kubrick a genius?

Was a Kubrick genius?

A genius, Kubrick was. Kind to his cast, he was not.

water is wet.

+Dan O'Connell: Well, on top of showing the obvios, this video makes it look easy. It wasn't, as, as you can imagine, it is not even possible to have one piece of the set rotating at one moment, and at the next second the same perfectly still while the part of the set that was not moving instantly starts rotating at the same speed. There were certainly a couple of seconds where one part of the set was slowing down to zero while the other part was accelerating to the effetct that the relative speed between the two parts was kept the same. This was not only difficult from a mechanical point of vieuw, but at the same time, the actors were supposed to pretend nothing was moving, while the piece of set they are on is in fact decelerating rapidly. And as in other scenes of the film, you can see certain movements that can be explained only by the fact that the set is in fact moving. Check the movements of the guy on the left side at 0'20''. I cannot imagine how many takes were necessary to achieve this.

+VincentandCoBxl Yeah, that switch off between one section rotating and the other was critical to making this work... and it was done unbelievably well. I imagine the camera was mounted to the hallway section, would have made keeping the point of view the same relatively simple in comparison to timing the transition.

I would love to see some shots of this set from the outside, or an onsite video from the production of the film

aegisgfx Sorry, but Kubrick took extra notice to destroy all the on-set/extra footage that was filmed. Along with all the models and sets that were used. He was a man that did this for the art, and not just for the money. And that's one of the most respectable aspects of Kubrick.

bloody impressive that you can't see any kind of jerk while one section stops and the other starts. imagine the inertia of an object that large rotoating. it would have to stop on a dime.

if you look carefully both actors when step into the next section stop for a few seconds and seem to hold on the roof.. that when that section stops spinning while the previous one stars.. Also they had to step in at a very precise moment so the section would stop with the hatch down

From what you are saying, you don't seem to understand what was going on in this shot. I have thought about and I assume understand how this shot was done, and it doesn't require any "stopping on a dime". What they did was, they have Section B (the far section) rotating at a constant pace based off the section A hallway. But then they have section A able to rotate in relation to another outer frame that it is situated in (section B does not have to even touch this outer frame). The camera is fixed onto the floor of section A. So the shot starts with section A hanging in the frame so that the floor of section A is on the bottom. So they walk down the hallway with section B rotating on the end of section A at a constant rate. There was probably someone holding section A in this position as they were shooting the first part. Now when Dullea and Lockwood get back to section B which is rotating, they wait for the port hole to get to the bottom, and move onto that part of the set. At that point, just gravity is going to want that section to stop rotating (in relation to the Earth). But quite likely some stagehand would slow it down and stop it very quickly too, as the person who was holding the section A from rotating would now let go. Since A and B are locked together, with B rotating in relation to A, at that point, section A will just naturally start rotating in the opposite direction to the way section B had been just a second ago. They very well could have started stepping on to section B even before the hatch was right on the bottom. But the camera is fixated to section A and to the camera, section B continues rotating at the exact same speed in relation to it. It will look perfectly smooth. But now section A is rotating and section B has come to a stop. But one of the main things I am pointing out is, it doesn't matter how quickly they stopped one section and started another section, since they are locked together it will always look smooth to the camera. If they took too long to start up section A and slow down to a stop section B, it would still look fine as far as the 2 sections go. But you WOULD see that Dullea and Lockwood would start out leaning too far one way when they were standing up in section B.

Trumbull did the effects, Kubrick got the Oscar for them.

Wouldn't use CGI for something like this anyway.

Did they use an orchestra? I've seen some screenings of movies that do, I'd love to see one of those sometimes

Cinerama

Probably many viewers didn't even give it a thought. Remember, most people don't give 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 a thought. My parents happened to be in London when the film premiered. They and half of the audience walked out within 45 minutes. The film was almost totally panned by critics as meaningless nonsense with no plot, and no character development. Half a century later, it 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 looks new, and is widely recognized as 𝘵𝘩𝘦 greatest film of all time. I was in fifth grade when I first saw it (1968) and, as soon as I exited the theater, began telling everyone that it was the greatest film ever made. But no one takes a 10 year old seriously 😂 Since then, movies have only gotten shallower. I am at a complete loss to name a single movie that even 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 to be of such grand scope, pure artistry, and metaphysical profundity.

I was 13 and my brother and college friend took me to first showing. 3rd row balcony just left of center, 70mm magic on 3 full screens. I needed to turn my head slightly to see all that perfect contrasted masterpiece. No way can a computer generated pixel equal that analog beauty.

It has iPads in it LOL

In terms of science fiction, can you name any film that did a better job with special effects that depicted THE FUTURE more believably? This film may have been made over 50 years ago, but nobody has done a better job since then - at least that I am aware of.

Amazing for any time.

@@Peter-pb8jg What's surprising about 2001 is how unique it was. There was never a film even remotely like it before, and there's not really been that much since. MAYBE Moon is similar in it trying to be a realistic vision of a future with regard to space travel. There's really no science fiction film that tries to be scientifically accurate. 2001 had some problems - moon gravity was totally wrong, for example, the centrifuge on the Discovery was too small, but for the time it was amazing, and nothing like it has been made since.

@@fuzzywzhe Oddly enough, I was just thinking recently that Moon had something of the same feel to it. As you say, not much like it out there.

@@herringfly Because Moon is just about the only one that tries to stick close to science which is a bit amusing because Moon is more in the Alien universe. Sunshine was billed as "the next 2001". I was so freaking angry when I was fooled into watching that stupid, dumb, slasher film.

Kubrick tried to not use any copying, but always use just one take. So, that involved winding the film back in the camera to exposure areas that had been blacked out during previous takes, for some of the effects. So all scenes would be "first generation".

He shot it on 70mm film, which is still better resolution than almost all films today.

Especially with the IPads.

Still does.

​@@Discrimination_is_not_a_right I agree that there are still amazing effects in movies today, but also there are huge companies cutting corners and I think everybody is pretty disappointed especially with Disney right now. Just watch Ant-man and the wasp: quantumania to see what I mean.

@@ephraimcullen I'd probably be at a loss to determine which corners are being cut. What do you mean?

@@Discrimination_is_not_a_right kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qZldnKlyl969coU.html Here's a vid I like that talks a bit about the CGI in the movie

@@ephraimcullen The narrator seems to be full of his own opinions.

Good thinking. Bring the other one to a halt but the overall set speed would remain constant.

Great catch. It had to be timed perfectly.

i only watch the part with monkeys the rest of it is garbage

@@xxx_rotfd_xiii_xii3619 it was epic. You must have missed the meaning of the film.

I'm guessing you're aware there was *no* post-production on this shot, other than colour timing (the original phrase for colour grading)? It's all done live, in-camera, with the actors having to synchronise their stepping off one set and onto the other perfectly with the scene crew stopping the rear set rotating while starting the corridor set moving.

Yes! A differential. See this working mock-up demonstrated, using a differential: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtx5odh2rZPQd4E.html

Yngvar Følling The interior and exterior shots of the spacecraft are double exposures. The exterior scenes were shot with the windows blacked out. The film was rewound, the model was covered in black felt, and the interior scenes were projected onto white cards. The worm-gear machine on which the camera and models were fastened was called the Sausage Factory because they thought they could turn out takes quickly. Didn’t work out; took many takes to get every aspect right. From the book “The Making of 2001.” I saw the film in 1968 in Cinerama and was stunned by the amazing effects. I’m still amazed at how good they are. It all holds up really well even after 50 years.