I was 7 the first time I saw this on "the big screen" in 1973, and then again in Cinerama many years later. Its a masterpiece.

@beyond_the_infinite2098

Жыл бұрын

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.

All space travel should be accompanied by this glorious music, lovely to watch, well done

Love the way the PanAm ship rolls in perfect sync with the space station. Noted it long ago when the movie first played. Kubrick was a genius. I never tire of watching these scenes which are rendered so well by the addition of the Blue Danube.

@rick23velvet30

Жыл бұрын

Vals is slow exquisit in space wonder full sound

One of the best ever. Way ahead of its time.

I saw it in Cinerama. Playing the Blue Danube while the space ships and space stations rendezvous is as perfect a musical accompaniment in movie history.

@craigw.scribner6490

Жыл бұрын

Me too. Back in 1968!

@DanielAppleton-lr9eq

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

@DanYHKim2

20 күн бұрын

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

When they made 2001 they'd have never thought that PanAm would go out of business.

One of best scenes ever. Grace, beauty, and sheer scale.

I was in awe of this scene when I first saw it so many years ago...and it still has the same impact. A ballet in space. I'm sure most younger people don't know what Pan Am was.

@DanielAppleton-lr9eq

6 ай бұрын

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

@billolsen4360

4 ай бұрын

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

@DanielAppleton-lr9eq

4 ай бұрын

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

theres no telling what kubrick could have achieved with todays cgi, he would have driven the animators insane :)

@TheStockwell

Жыл бұрын

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!

@user-do5zk6jh1k

Жыл бұрын

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

@truthandreality8465

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@BobHooker

Жыл бұрын

Jesus nobody had topped what they achieved

@kevinoboyle8939

Жыл бұрын

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

I applaud the effort put into this endevor. Thank you. In my view this reinforces the realism using old school technical film processes established by Kubrick over what our modern CGI is capable of. This rendition while superb, is obviously a CGI production. Kubricks origional production is still a classic far superior to what can be done today. Cudo's & thanks again for uploading and all the hard work. It's always a treat to see 2001 appreciated for what it is.

@hlcepeda

Жыл бұрын

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.

@drtidrow

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Discrimination_is_not_a_right

Жыл бұрын

You're going by this? Seriously?

On a recent airline flight, I happened to take a glance into the cockpit. There I saw the consoles that were used by the pilots. Unlike the array of mechanical gauges, lights, and switches that made up the controls of an airliner in my teenage years, I saw a much simpler console with an LCD screen . I was struck by the similarity between the screen used in that airliner and the control screen used in the lunar lander scene in 2001. I am old-ish. And every so often I will see or hear or experience something and say to myself "I live in 'the Future'"

so sorry, the original looked much better

@lawrencedoliveiro9104

Жыл бұрын

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

@vincentgutierrez8510

5 ай бұрын

What do you mean that is the Original 😮

@wcookejr

10 күн бұрын

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.

My parents purchased an LP with the music from the movie. The cover had a very striking painting of the space station with the Pan Am shuttle synchronizing itself to the landing bay. One of the things that I noticed in my many hours of staring at that painting was that there were tiny workers in space suits tethered to the struts and girders of the new wheel under construction. I do not know if they appeared in the movie, but they were part of the vision. When making a CGI of this type, it might be worthwhile to add those little men, as well as the small flashes of welding torches as the unfinished wheel falls into shadow. These kinds of effects can really drive home to scale of that habitat ring.

I WAS IN 4th GRADE IT WAS 1969 THIS FILM 🎥 WAS SO OPTIMISTIC TO WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD BE LIKE 💯💯💯💯💥👍. PAN AM WAS THE BEST PART FOR ME, I RETIRED FROM DELTA AIRLINES!!!

This is such a compelling CGI exploration! Well done.

I went with the Family to see 2001 when it came to the theaters! It blew me away! Even today, the original SFX are still quite convincing! Note: of course, flat screen technology was non-existent back then, what they did was to hand-animate the displays, then project it from behind!!! Also, Early Star Trek veteran Gary Lockwood is featured in 2001!!!

Nice sincere homage. Of course we all love the movie and can tell that you do as well. Great work.

@aldinelt7214

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much.

@marcelcasey5008

2 жыл бұрын

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

@jaylenyousef146

2 жыл бұрын

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

@drewthomas1458

2 жыл бұрын

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

@marcelcasey5008

2 жыл бұрын

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

Fantastic CGI Effects Make 2001 A Space Odyssey 1968 Ever Better!😯🚀🛰🌌🪐🌕🌑🇺🇲

Ah, to be able to like a video more than once! I remember talking to a man who ran a projector in the military. He said that the scene of the docking made him forget about the projector.

Well done and a nice homage. I would add though it doesn't quite capture the look, feel, and in my view, the magic of the original . But, what could?

How many kids were inspired to go into aerospace careers because of this film? If Kubrick never did another film, this alone would have made him immortal.

I was 13 when it was released. Wish I could have seen it in Cinerama. Leaving the theater, I looked forward to (the then distant) year of 2001, fully expecting to have a "Space Station V" and Lunar Bases. By the early 70's though most of that hope had been abandoned, as all the knowledge and infrastructure had been mothballed or simply thrown away.

I saw in a "Cinemascope" theater in June, 1968, when I was 12 & thought this is as close as I will ever to space. Although, I agree with Tamalain's comment as to practical effects, congratulations to you are in order; I concur VERY WELL DONE.

@riogrande5761

Жыл бұрын

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

@DanYHKim2

20 күн бұрын

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.

1:42 Love the inclusion of the city lights here. 3:09 Love this shot as the shuttle flies in from the foreground.

Nicely done! Thanks!

Re: The satellite + sunrise scene over the dark side of the Earth- Adding the city lights on the planet's nightside was an effect no others animators thought to include. Excellent ! I made that still my wallpaper. Thanks for sharing. I subscribed.

Thank U so much .good job♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️👍👍👍👍👍

A very well done piece. I think it also demonstrates just how great the original was for its time.

Excellent! Awesome job thank you 2001 has to be my favorite sci- fi movie of all time.

Growing up I had the model of the Pan Am space shuttle.

That was fun. Thank you.

Stunning

2001 is my favorite movie of all time, and without a doubt it's because of the slow flying spaceships set to waltz music. This is a really nice video. I'd love that some of these scenes be made available as desktop screens. Thanks again.

Well done. You captured the feel of it.

Thank you everyone for such great comments and suggestions. That is the only way I can improve for my next CGI video.

Very well done. Though the old practical effects models will always be the favorite in these scenes.

@aldinelt7214

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much.

@mnomadvfx

Жыл бұрын

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

Beautiful work. I liked it more than the original by far.

Wonderful! If 2001 had been made just a few years later it probably would've looked like this. But the fact that they were able to make that movie look the way it did without motion control or even primitive CGI is astounding. And the making of docs really underscore what an undertaking it was with the technology of the time

@geoff4383

Жыл бұрын

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

Nice. Gave me goosebumps 👍😷🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇨🇦

Nice to see you kept the country flags on the ships :) Nice attention to detail.

Stunning! And well done for fixing the perspective errors in the first shots. I'll never understand how Kubrik let those slide. They're clearly done with the camera panning over still shots of the models, and they stick out like out like a sore thumb.

@stephen70edwards

Жыл бұрын

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?

Bravo! This should have many more views...thank you for this, 2001 is my favorite movie of all time.

Beautifully done. Very difficult to improve on a movie like 2001 but your treatment was tasteful & respectful.

Awesome!

Sometimes 2D backgrounds are better than 3D backgrounds because big things like planets have a tendency to look too small in 3D, especially if you do big camera moves.

Beautifully done.

@aldinelt7214

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much.

Brilliant! I almost thought I was watching a clip from the actual movie.

Is it my imagination but does the music and visuals seem sped up slightly while keeping the tone corrected for the increase speed. It looks a little sped up for the grace I remembered. Watch it again thinking slower and smoother to the music.

Great work really enjoyed it!

Very nice work, very pleasant to watch.

Beautiful!

Nice work! On occasion, I think it would be cool to update the original film with better effects. But then, you might as well do the same with Gone With The Wind; both films are classics that stand on their own. God forbid some moron with a budget decides to “update” or “reimagine” Kubrick by doing a “more realistic” version of 2001, calling it “2100: (Whatever)”, using AI to follow, say, Clarke’s novelization to the letter, with current knowledge, butchering the work. I saw the film in Cinerama in Chicago back in ‘68 and have never lost the awe.

Beautiful work!

Fabulous. I've read 2061 and 3001 but always thought the powers behind the monolith would have rescued Frank Poole and could have been another story line, as David Bowman was in 2010.

Amazing work!

Very nice and very well-executed homage, but of course nothing beats the original 🙂.

Im scribing! More!!! Thanks, and super!

Came across by accident - many thanks - excellent work!

Very well done, thanks!

neat stuff !

That was beautiful!

Good work. I like the way part of the middle "axle" of the space station is rotating faster than the rest, 2:43.

3:44 I notice you repeated the same mistake Kubrick made: from the viewpoint of the station facing the incoming shuttle, the rotation is clockwise. Yet when the view switches to the inside of the docking bay a few seconds later, the stars are rotating clockwise, which means the station is spinning the other way.

The original analog version was pretty popular. Why would the CGI version be any better? Now I know.

Thank you everyone for the great feedback!!

You do nice work. It is interesting to see the sme shots done in the moderen way. If only your budget was millions. We could see the rest of the shots replicated.

@aldinelt7214

3 жыл бұрын

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.

The original effects still hold up... except that satellite with the propellor-like dish always looked a little fake to me.

That was very good. I noticed that you gave FULL credit to Stanley Kubrick. If his family or copyright holders have any objection to this I would consider them to be crazy. This is nothing but a hugely respectful homage to a genius. Kubrick is among my favourite half dozen film directors of all time.

Good job!

As someone who worked for Kubrick I think he would have been happy to replace some of the scenes with improved CGI versions. Superior visuals need not distract ftom the story.

wow!!!!!

Kubrick was so misunderstood all of his films make you think

This is excellent work. I had to check the description to confirm that it wasn't the original.

Just imagine if Kubric had access to the animation and CGI tech we enjoy today..

@JoseyWales44s

3 жыл бұрын

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

@daleeasternbrat816

3 жыл бұрын

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

@scorpionjimmy8734

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@lawrencedoliveiro9104

Жыл бұрын

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.

Aw MAN! Ended too soon! Please keep this going! I want to see the beach ball land on the moon! AND I want to see the events in Jupiter Space! Awesome work, though!

Ouch 4:15 Using stills for the windows in the dock where Kubrick use live action rotoscoped in the scene. Could of put in RCS bursts on the PanAm clipper too. Sorry man, but thats a fail.

As a physical effect, completed in the late 1960's this scene was and IS extremely impressive. The effects on that film have held up magnificently. As a CGI project produced 55 years later..... Not so much. This version looks flat, lifeless and plastic. I applaud your ambition, BUT if you are going to take on one of the TRUE classics of cinema, Of science fiction, AND of the physical effects artist's craft, you had better be able to bring a LOT more than this to the table. KEEP TRYING!! WHEN you can bring us something that equals, or surpasses the original then you will hear us all cheer. You're not there YET, but you COULD be.

@u2mister17

Жыл бұрын

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.

Not long ago, the episodes of the original _Star Trek_ were remastered with CGI and images that were cleaned up. I wonder if MGM will take a chance at remastering _2001._. In 1968, we did not know what the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons looked like. No telescope on Earth was strong enough. Now we do, and they ought to superimpose the graphics of those surfaces into the film. Damn shame we don't have any of those objects built yet, or a base.

1 gee I liked that!

Wonderful. You are very talented, Indeed. May I be permitted a small observation? At the end, would it not be better to fade out? I was enjoying the vid so much that it came as a shock to meet that abrupt end, coupled with disappointment that there was no more!! I sincerely hope that you will extend it.

Nice one :0)

I can't wait for the version from Filmation, Inc.!

Fantástic work would like to see a CGI digital restoration of 2001 and its sequel 2010

You should rename this a basic level CGI Space Odyssey. The best CGI looks so real you can't easily tell its CGI, but even now, that still takes LOTS of time, and money, and expensive powerful hardware to help.

Space Garage looking out. The stars should rotate.

子供の時、この映画を観ました。22年も経過しているのに、全く実現していません。

Very nice. The original using models is far more realistic.

Not A Bad Effort But You Forgot To Put The Thin Blue Airglow (Also Known As The Limb Of The Earth Or The Blue Ozone Layer That Surrounds The Earth ! ! !) That Surrounds The Earth ! ! ! Also The CGI Ships And Space Stations Look Too Clean And Clinical Looking (Especially The Aries Spaceplane Which Needs A Bit Of Dirtying Up To Give It That 'Used' Look And To Make It Look Like It Has Taken Off From Planet Earth And Is Headed For The Space Station). I Still Think Physical Models If They Are Made And Painted And Lit And Filmed Well Will Always Look More Realistic Than CGI Rendered Ships ! ! !

@kempstonj

Жыл бұрын

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.

@andrewhillis9544

Жыл бұрын

@@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!!!

The original with actual models is superior imho. Nice effort though! (the rendering of Earth, however, is better than the original).

The orbiting nuclear warhead launch platforms have mostly lost their national markings: first one is USAF, second German, third is correctly shown to have the French Armee d'l'aire roundel on it, the platform with the umbrella panels has lost its People's Liberation Army Air Force red star-and-bar, and so on. Love your work, only the usual tiny niggle of the less-than smooth animation when some still frames jitter as the platforms move quickly toward the edge of frame, but the colours, lighting, etc. is well-defined, clear and sharp. Love it.

@DanYHKim2

20 күн бұрын

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.

Why did you leave out the segment of the shuttle unmatched to the station rotation? Of course they have to match the roll of the shuttle to the station yet you left that out! Too lazy? Not enough time? Not enough money?

Your Sun in the opening lacks the red glow. In the movie, the red glowing point of light of the sun resembles the eye of HAL, the Cyclops of the Odyssey.

@DanYHKim2

20 күн бұрын

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.

Proof that miniatures and traditional FX will always look better than CGI.

@drtidrow

Жыл бұрын

You mean one guy working on his home PC - real CGI productions these days can have a hundred or more people working on a shot like this, as did the original miniatures version.

@jimsmalleimb7709

Жыл бұрын

@@drtidrow Actually, no. The original film did not employ hundreds of crew in the VFX studio. Maybe a dozen modelmakers and a handful of grips and camera crew. Modern films that are CGI love fests (with remarkably un-special effects) DO take hundreds of people as you stated. Just look at the list of animators in the credits of any movie made today. It's one of the reasons why films cost so much now. "Moon", for example, proved that miniature FX can be done far less expensively, need far fewer people, and look as good or better than CGI-laden productions. The best use of CGI is to augment some problems inherent in miniature photography like scale problems with water, fire, etc.

Basically, if 2001 were made in…well, the year 2001

would you please mind lending the models, they're amazing, i would need them for a project

I don’t know how but the original one somehow looks better than this not seen the video is bad I’m just saying that the original movie which I know CGI somehow looked better than modern technology and I think that’s something really beautiful.

Using fade-in and out for opening credits, instead of the technically clean on/off style used by Kubrick, is a crime beyond belief. What will be next? Rounded corners on the monolith?

I want more.

유인원이 하늘로 던진 뼈가 그대로 우주정거장이 되는 시퀀스는 정말 인류의 장구한 역사를 명쾌하게 하나로 이어붙였다.

Space Station V and Orion lll Space Plane are very iconic

@stevejordan7275

Жыл бұрын

God, the future that could have been. We'd be flying the Orion VI or VII by now. Or maybe the new Perseus design (a logical - or at least alphabetical - successor to the *O*rion.) By 2001 - at least in the tie-in novel - Floyd had been to Mars twice. *Twice.*

@oceanellison8687

Жыл бұрын

@@stevejordan7275 it would be awsome if nasa had built the planes for pan am

@stevejordan7275

Жыл бұрын

@@oceanellison8687 NASA builds nothing. They're an agency of the federal government, just like the Air Force. Examples: The Apollo CSM was built by North American, the LM was built by Grumman, the Saturn booster stages were built by Boeing (S-IC), North American (S-II), and Douglas (S-IVB). Shuttle was built by Rockwell. These companies also build aircraft for the USAF. In fact, recall that the 700-series aircraft (707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787) were built by Boeing as well, and sold to various carriers like Pan Am, TWA, United, Quantas, and a hundred others. Pan Am (in-universe) simply happened to be the owner of that particular Orion-III. But would indeed have been awesome if the Orion-III had flown, and found a viable market. (*sigh*) The future ain't what it used to be.

@oceanellison8687

Жыл бұрын

@@stevejordan7275 most of the info you sent I knew but interesting tho