If you like film, check out my main channel, Lessons from the Screenplay: kzread.info

@marcelloursic424

6 жыл бұрын

Oh, I know you!

@wheezybrownbear7708

6 жыл бұрын

oh shit its you!

@betaneptune

4 жыл бұрын

@@wheezybrownbear7708 Yes, it is he!

@ignaciobarreda7633

4 жыл бұрын

IT'S YOU!!

@GasparKvarta

Жыл бұрын

I KNOW YOU

The magic of this movie is that everything seems REAL. You are never once removed from the immediacy of the action by a technical glitch or disbelief. Total immersion.

@GeoStreber

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Agarwaen

Жыл бұрын

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

@thecianinator

Жыл бұрын

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

@robertking3098

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@twiff3rino28

Жыл бұрын

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

The fact that this movie was made in the 60s is just stunning. It was so far ahead of it's time.

@ericfaulk2204

Жыл бұрын

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

@stanleybochenek1862

Жыл бұрын

Alien technology

@samrowe2889

Жыл бұрын

No it was made in 2001 read the title

@officialpaulsinwill

Жыл бұрын

@@samrowe2889 Someone finally gets it 😂

@TorstenAdair

Жыл бұрын

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

I've studied all of these scenes over the last 40+ years trying to figure out how they shot them. The illusion of zero G they created in this movie is utter genius.

@HOTD108_

Жыл бұрын

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.

@suedeB05

Жыл бұрын

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

@JGG1701

Жыл бұрын

​​@@suedeB05 Watch your mouth mister.😉

@igrvks

Жыл бұрын

​@@HOTD108_ wow you are so intelligent lol

@BelieveInUrself93

Жыл бұрын

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

What I find amazing is the complete lack of camera vibration when the camera is on a moving or rotating mounting. Trumbull's rotating jigs must have been built like giant Swiss watches.

@n0tyham

6 жыл бұрын

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

@justgivemethetruth

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@fllthdcrb

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@justgivemethetruth

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@eddievhfan1984

2 жыл бұрын

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.

Finally, KZread recommends something I'll actually like.

@AnonTen

6 жыл бұрын

That's why they use AI

@justgivemethetruth

3 жыл бұрын

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.

The transition is so smooth I didn't even notice it. How very creative :)

@warsboerse5866

7 жыл бұрын

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

@AndieBlack13

7 жыл бұрын

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.

@PointyTailofSatan

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@noagoogu8175

6 жыл бұрын

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

@Toobula

6 жыл бұрын

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

The enginnering team behind this shot is genius! The transition is so smooth that i didn't believe they could do this just by rotating the set.

@justgivemethetruth

6 жыл бұрын

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

@justgivemethetruth

3 жыл бұрын

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

@djanitatiana

3 жыл бұрын

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

@justgivemethetruth

3 жыл бұрын

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

@djanitatiana

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

As explained by others, this practical movie effect was a two part set where each section would rotate independently from the other. Production Designer Tony Masters designed this effect for Kubrick. This set was referred to as the Hublink. This particular shot of Dullea and Lockwood coming past the camera and exiting into the Centrifuge was done in April 20, 1966 in 6 takes, the first 4 of which were no good due to the effect not working. The last two takes were printed and one of those used. The camera at the back of the set was a Todd-AO 65mm with the, well known, Fairchild Curtis 160 degree lens used for many of 2001's wide angle shots...many of the HAL POV shots were done with this lens as well. There were 2 days spent on this set with other variations of just Dullea or Lockwood coming up and down into the Centrifuge. The harder shot was both of them coming up from the Centrifuge, which was shot the same day and took 15 takes, the last 4 being printed...the rest deemed unsatisfactory by Kubrick. A similar effect was used during the filming of Dullea re-entering the Discovery through the Emergency Airlock. The set was filmed vertically with the camera at the bottom for Dullea to come in from the top...the set was reset the other way with stuntman Bill Weston being pulled up to and hitting the back door. During the filming of Dullea rebounding back toward the outer door there was an angle change made...and, most significantly, a speed change on the filming camera. When Dullea bounds back...the camera is under-cranked so that his movements seem rapid...then, when his feet are up near the ceiling, there is a speed change to over-cranking the camera that makes his movements slow and leisurely..floating. The neat thing about this is that the airlock door has to make a speed change also to appear to be closing shut at the same rate. This was done by tying the door speed with the camera change...which was done a lot on 2001 and engineered by Wally Veevers, Tony Masters, and Ernie Archer.

@YDDES

7 жыл бұрын

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

@Ballsarama

7 жыл бұрын

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.

@AchtungEnglander

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@josephgaviota

6 жыл бұрын

Enjoyed your post very much :-)

@MaddysComicart

6 жыл бұрын

But what snacks did they serve on set?

The film got me into special effects too. Watching it just now, it is still impressive to start and stop heavy pieces of scenery with actors inside.

@anonb4632

6 жыл бұрын

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

@smadaf

Жыл бұрын

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.

As directors go, Stanley Kubrick was a perfectionist. His vision for his motion pictures called for groundbreaking effects by giants of that sub-industry within movie-making. His engineers were exemplary.

My dad showed me this film for the first time in 1992. He did realize how this shot was made, but he was in awe of how they were able to stop one movement and start the other, of a HUGE set, without a SINGLE shake of camera or set, smoothly, instantly.

@AchtungEnglander

6 жыл бұрын

it really is seriously impressive

@nagualdesign

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@myhihi1337

6 жыл бұрын

Your dad would really like Inception

@rdecredico

6 жыл бұрын

Inception is crap.

@jimkoral3824

5 жыл бұрын

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

Kubrick was a genius.

@gxbrxxl9626

6 жыл бұрын

genius was a Kubrick.

@YostPeter

6 жыл бұрын

was Kubrick a genius?

@VAVORiAL

6 жыл бұрын

Was a Kubrick genius?

@riatorex8722

4 жыл бұрын

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

@GuruPrashanth7970

4 жыл бұрын

water is wet.

Still though... getting the sections of the set to rotate and stop rotating in-sync with the camera and such... still quite the achievement and more than a mere camera trick.

@VincentandCoBxl

8 жыл бұрын

+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.

@Belboz99

8 жыл бұрын

+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.

Very interesting. You can see both actors coordinate their step from one part of the set to the other to allow the foreground set to begin rotation and the background set to be halted. Those sets had to have had fairly significant mass thus the force needed to stop and start had to be rather large. As others have commented, the smoothness of the transition is amazing.

It's a cool effect. Even knowing how it was done, you still have to marvel at the timing between locking off the background section while simultaneously rotating the foreground (while synchronising both to the actors' movements, to avoid injury.) The rotating-set effect was, of course, used quite effectively several times in the movie (and was also used for a brief shot in "CE3K.")

I saw 2001 as a kid the first time they showed it on TV. Was also blown away, it was too much to take in at one time. Every time i see it there is something new to experience.

The creative methods Trumbull and his team employed to deceive the eye are legendary. With no explanation of the mechanics used when first seeing 2001 in 1968, I was dumbfounded by this and other scenes. All of these effects devised before CGI had even been invented! Astounding and brilliant!

@lawrencedoliveiro9104

Жыл бұрын

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

@Discrimination_is_not_a_right

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't use CGI for something like this anyway.

The camera work is great, the idea of multiple rotating pieces acting as a stage is unbelievably creative, but one also has to admire the way the actors move. It does sell you on the idea that they are only awkwardly held in place by their velcro-shoes.

My explanation from Reddit: The hallway is split into two segments, each attached to a geared barrel that can rotate. I'll call the hallway nearest to the camera Section A, and the further section where they climb down Section B. For the first half of the shot, Section B is rotating, while the actors are walking through Section A-the hallway-which the camera is fixed and attached to. Then, as soon as the actors step from Section A to Section B, Section B stops rotating with the ladder pointing down, while simultaneously Section A starts rotating.

@aegisgfx

7 жыл бұрын

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

@ragejoona431

7 жыл бұрын

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.

@alknowshow

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@sparrowlt

6 жыл бұрын

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

@manipunation

6 жыл бұрын

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.

These shots were all explained in great detail in the 2001 50th anniversary book, but difficult to ‘see’ it in your head. This really helped - thank you!👏👏👍👏

When I first saw this movie (sometime in the '90s) I remember being by baffled by this effect, not because I didn't know how they did it, but by how they were able to do it so smoothly. It's still mind blowing.

I have first seen this film in one of the biggest screenings in world history. It was outside with thousands of seats and a canvas the size of a huge house. I had never watched any part of the film prior to it, it was insane.

@indyrevoly3060

Жыл бұрын

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

52 years passed, but it remains simply the best.

I wonder if on set it was SUPER loud since those stages were being spun by machinery. Also, that is a really good transition! You can hardly tell one set stops spinning, and the other starts.

It's still the best sci-fi film ever made.

I saw it in a theater in 1969. They used a special screen in the theater. It was huge and curved. I sat in the 3rd row and, I could see the screen if I looked to my left or right. It was amazing.

@Peter-pb8jg

Жыл бұрын

Cinerama

The meticulousness and expense of this rotation effect and the spacewalk scenes said to many viewers: "This movie is a glitzy, self-indulgent show of space gadgetry." It said to many others: "This director will go to any length to tell you this story, so it must be important for you to hear."

@brianmarasca4496

3 жыл бұрын

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.

Not only is the engineering so well done, Keir and Gary's timing are spot on.

I have just recently rewatched 2001... I can't believe how much better that movie is than I remembered it... The feel and look of it.. I mean it's 50 freaking years old and it still blows away anything since then.. Kubrick was that good. Beautiful post thank you for sharing

@u2mister17

3 жыл бұрын

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.

@prof.sirjeffreydarling-mil3463

Жыл бұрын

It has iPads in it LOL

I am still blown away by how smooth the transition is. Absolutely seamless!

The man was a genius for making this much realism in 1968.

One of the greatest films ever. Amazing for its time.

@fuzzywzhe

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Peter-pb8jg

Жыл бұрын

Amazing for any time.

@fuzzywzhe

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@herringfly

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@fuzzywzhe

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

This movie is hands down incredible on many levels. Even watching the film quality and color is so crisp and clear. Spared no expense! Looks like it was made a few years ago!

@YDDES

7 жыл бұрын

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".

@5roundsrapid263

6 жыл бұрын

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

@DarthRushy

6 жыл бұрын

Especially with the IPads.

I love this movie so much. It's a masterpiece.

I knew how they made it and it still looks seemless. It serves the story. With innovation. Masterfully crafted

The very most well shot film ever made. Nothing will ever pass it.

In the day when visual effects meant creativity and precision! Glorious

@Discrimination_is_not_a_right

Жыл бұрын

Still does.

@ephraimcullen

Жыл бұрын

​@@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.

@Discrimination_is_not_a_right

Жыл бұрын

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

@ephraimcullen

Жыл бұрын

@@Discrimination_is_not_a_right kzread.info/dash/bejne/pWdhy6h6Ytu_crQ.html Here's a vid I like that talks a bit about the CGI in the movie

@Discrimination_is_not_a_right

Жыл бұрын

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

Amazing! The synchronicity of it. They were using either primitive calculators or regular stopwatches for this to stop and start and vice versa.

I love this type of stuff in movies, makes you appreciate the beauty and magic of mathermatical/scientific thinking. This was mostly timing, but movies like lord of the rings took tons of math to get the hobbit scale working with an orbiting camera to keep the same sizes from different perspectives. We studied the camera projection math on day one of computer vision. It's so cool. I loves maths

Unlike CGI, this shot will never look old.

This makes me even more impressed with Kubrick because after this reveal, I am less confident in my understanding of how this shot worked.

These comments are excellent. Thank you! And kudos to Micheal for posting this.

in the beginning the hall they are walking down is stationary, and the hub of the centrifuge is rotating. When they get to the hub, there is one moment when both of them have their feet in the hub and take their feet off the hall, and then they start rotating the hall and the centrifuge is stable. To do this they had to take a few frames out of the film because nothing starts or stops rotating immediately. But the effect is amazing.

As a young kid I didn't really appreciate 2001 as much, until later on into my adulthood I watch it again and was blown away.

So essentially the hublink set was in two halves. Whichever half the actors were on was immobile while the other one rotated. When they stepped from the first half to the second half (the one with the centrifuge hatch), it stopped rotating and the first half began rotating at exactly the same speed in the opposite direction. The actors would have had to get used to making the transfer without any hint of a jolt, and the timing would have had to be exact to avoid any blip in the shooting.

"great movies of the past?" When I was a kid, this was a great movie of the future! Now it's a great movie of a past vision of a future that -- aside from skype and flat TVs -- didn't come.

Thanks for posting this. Been wondering for decades how this would look.

I like both as the original gives off that weird unnatural feeling of them going down a ladder while it’s up or to the side but the edit puts the guys in focus and makes them the center of the scene keeping the ladder in a realistic position for the audience. It could be used in a movie as a clever way to show mood or plot or how the story is going

Such genius to conceive of ways to trick the minds eye like that! What a wondrous age we live in! Kubrick and his FX crew were madly brilliant!

I saw this as a little kid when it first came out... it has always been one of my favorite movies

It's interesting to see how at about 0:10 Keir starts stalling a bit in order for Gary to catch up with him so they can walk off the soon-to-start-rotating tube _together_ (or else Gary would have a hard time to maintain his stance). I wonder how they kept the perfectly _constant_ difference between the rotational speeds of the two tubes throughout, some kind of differential mechanism adapted from an automobile probably. In reality the switch was almost certainly not sudden as in your video but gradual (a second or two) because of the inertia of the parts. That's why a very rigid differential mechanism was needed (my guess) or else we'd see an awkward hiccup. The set was probably made of wood, so not very heavy, but still...

@TheMetalButcher

5 жыл бұрын

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

@stevenreichertart

4 жыл бұрын

Great catch. It had to be timed perfectly.

A big help for the actors was IMHO that both could have their far hand grasp something solid both as a reference and to push away and pull towards without much notice.

They probably put a differential gear between the two sections of the set. Then the rate of rotation between them would be constant even though one starts and one stops turning.

when i was a little kid my dad took me to go see 2001 because he wanted to teach me about the great movies of NOW

OK, that was genius. Thanks for explaining how this effect was created. A masterpiece.

They must have cut a few frames from then they stepped into the new rotating framework and stopped that one from rotating to when the one they were on stopped rotating. This design is so clever and brilliant just to make a science fiction movie ... always blew me away.

I heard a story about these rotating rigs being built by Vickers Engineering, who were used to making large & heavy things move smoothly from their experience building battleship turrets for the Royal Navy.....but who knows.

When I first watched this movie had had over ear headphones and watched this movie in the dark by myself from beginning to end. It was quite the experience.

I watched this movie over a year ago and I couldn’t comprehend how they did this without cgi. This movie is an experience

Thanks for this video. Kubrick was a genius.

It still took me two rewatches of this video to realize what happened. Incredible filmmaking.

Still an awesome effect that twisted perception. Very cool.

Excellent explanation of a stunning visual effect. Many thanks.

Holy shit, even seeing how the effect is done I had to watch 3 times to get it. Genius

Greatest film ever made. Researching what it took to make it will force you at appreciate the creative aspects of the genius of it all.

@xxx_rotfd_xiii_xii3619

Жыл бұрын

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

@rancosteel

Жыл бұрын

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

*chuckling* Oh, very nice! Thanks for this! One of my favorite films and that shot is one of my favorites.

And that's why practical effects will always have a place in film.

SIMPLY AMAZING.

So simple. So brilliant.

It is an amazing shot. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a secret how it was done. I feel like I've always known how it was done. It was described in books on the film for instance. The amazing thing is Kubrick getting the studios to pay for his grand ideas as well as his will to get it right.

That description put this video on another level

That's freaking genius!!! Thank you for the video

The use of an excerpt from the Aram Khachaturian ballet "Gayane" adds a note of foreboding to this scene.

Fabulous work, thanks.

I like this a lot cause you suddenly realize hall is watching. Always

It will always remain one of my favorite films

1968, so many years, gone by so fast.

This just makes it more crazy to me. Geez I love this film

Coordination of both acting people is insane. I can barely imagine how to shot this with one guy alone, but two!?

Interesting. I noticed a slight delay in the stabilised shot but in the actual scene, it's hard to notice at first watch. But it does appear the far away tunnel slows down a bit when they step on it (or rather the closer tube spins slower, presumably because it's bigger and heavier or really just because it masks the transition better)

Nicely done!

Kubrick and Co. were movie magicians.

I clicked on this because it was less than 2 minutes long. I forgot all about the Romance from Khatchaturian's Gajane being the background... I have always loved this piece, but it's not in either of the orchestral suites. Now I'm motivated to track it down on line and enjoy the whole thing for the first time in decades!

nicely done. shows you how he directed the actors to move to look like they were stabilizing themselves in a moving cylinder too.

Cinematography is amazing

This is one of my favorite yt video

technical marvel of a film

FANTASTIC!!!

Imagine being in a theater in 1969 and this happens. You would be so disoriented!

Why did I need this in my life?

Nicely done! Now do the stewardess scene, when she walks around the circular cabin. ☺

FANTASTIC!!!!!!!! Been watching for 35 years and this one puzzled me until this morning!!!! Please note what Stephen Tucker recently wrote of this, the greatest film of them all "less a visionary masterpiece than a crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.” Aren't critics brilliant? 😮

Not only brilliant, but smooth as silk. (I wonder how many takes he made them do to get the perfect shot.)

This film was so ahead of its time

That is insane, you have to time it so insanely perfect not to get any stuttering, also one set is rotating counter the other, and the speed has to be 100% accurate, or this wouldn't look right. its that insane precision that sells it. A lesser director might settle for "that looks fine, noone will notice." but our brains notice things we dont even register we notice.

I think I first saw the movie around 1978 or so, because I remember that it was after Star Wars, so I must have been around 14 years. I did understand how it must have been done (I also noticed the track the camera must have used for the jogging scene), but I was still impressed by how smooth the transition was. I was more curious about how they managed to show the actors through the windows of the model spaceships. I never saw a sign of any bluescreen artifacts, which were quite visible in Star Wars.

@paulgreen4375

6 жыл бұрын

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.

great shot!

Now the question is: "How did you 'stabilize' it?"

Its so unbelievable when you look up that this movie was shot one year BEFORE the moon landing