It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What did Stanley Kubrik Know?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
jupiter becomes a sun in the sequel to 2001 - 2010.




posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What could Kubrick possibly have had worth supressing -IF- there was any supression? Technique.

Well said Vagabond. I have seen several pictures that when enlarged you could see numbers written on the different rocks. Prop markers IMO. Given Kubrick's perfectionism, this is something he probably would have insisted on as continuity would have been crucial and difficult given the make up of the set (rocks gravel etc.). Alot of critics of this theory have said that the footage lacks Kubricks unique signature style, but cinematography and filming a faked lunar scene for Uncle Sam aren't exactly the same thing. CIA, NSA, alot of these organizations have very close ties to the film industry, not so much now that digital technology has come into play, but at that time, Film was at the heart of the media still.
Something else about 2001 that struck me as odd were them monoliths. That may sound like an oxymoron as they were supposed to be odd of course, but there is some black coloress hard message that Kubrick is trying to convey. He had been asked many times in his life was to what the monoliths represented, but he took that to his grave as well I suppose.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by genuineninja
in order to trigger thermonuclear reactions within jupiter the planet would have to have at least ten times its current mass in order to have enough gravity to compress its gases enough for nuclear reactions to start. These people going on and on about the space probe with the nuke/battery really have to idea about how stars work.

As for stanley kubrick and the "eyes wide shut" i've only seen the last 15 mins of the movie so i cant comment.


I was waiting for someone to nail this one.....to small, a star-dud



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Kubrick cut about 19 minutes of 2001 immediately after the premiere--could that be what you are referring to? Kubrick claims that he removed the footage because after seeing it a few more times, he felt that it still could be further improved. Although not completely unheard of, to recut the film after it was already in release was still rather unusual. The film premiere was on April 2, 1968, and a week later, instructions were sent to theater owners on what scenes had to be cut out. Perhaps this is where the story about cutting the film with scissors evolved from.

The links below discuss the material that was edited from the film--the second link includes a better description of what was edited after the premiere, which removed some scenes of Poole jogging in the centrifuge, a few shots from the "Dawn of Man" sequence, a sequence of shots where Dave Bowman searches for the replacement antenna part in storage, a scene where HAL severs radio communication between Discovery and Poole's pod before killing him, and some shots of Poole's space walk before he is killed. Future versions of 2001 added some title inserts and a few additional shots. The DVD version of the film is even slightly different as several lines of dialogue have been changed.

www.visual-memory.co.uk...
www.palantir.net...

Being a Kubrick fan and having read a lot about his personality, I think that he would rather trash the entire film rather than let studio execs, movie critics, or even federal agents dictate any of the details.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I'm reviving this thread with an interesting article on Kubrick and "2001".

Alchemical Kubrick

Here's the thread where I originally posted this

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
ahh.... my kind of thread!

As I sit here: 1) My favourite movie is Full Metal Jacket
2) The DVD is next to me
3) I have The Shining on VCD next to me
4) I have 2001: a space oddysey and 2010: the year we made contact on DVD
5) I saw a documentry (maybe u didnt see it, it was on Australian TV (GO SBS!!)) on the topic that you have been talking about.

The documentry basically says that stanley kubrick filmed the fake moon landing with a newly developed camera, and the only reason the information leaked out is because he borrowed one of these cameras afterwards from the government to do a new movie.

it is also said that 2001: a space oddysey was made to prepare people for when the government released information concerning aliens.

i dont know what else to really say about the topic..... interesting though. i mite dig up some more stuff.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Something else about 2001 that struck me as odd were them monoliths...some black coloress hard message that Kubrick is trying to convey. He had been asked many times in his life was to what the monoliths represented, but he took that to his grave as well I suppose.


Were the monolith's present in The Sentinel? If so then it was Clarke's idea, not Kubrick's.

A few relevant bits from the WB website:


kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com...
* All of the "Dawn of Man" scenes, except for "Moonwatcher" demolishing the tapir skeleton with a bone, were shot on an indoor set using an elaborate front projection system created especially for the film.

* The main Discovery set was built by aircraft manufacturer Vickers-Armstrong inside a 12-meter by two-meter drum designed to rotate at five km per hour. It cost $750,000.

* Kubrick cut 19 minutes from the film’s original 158-minute running time after its New York premiere, mostly to speed up the pacing.


Fun thread.


[edit on 2005-10-2 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Kubrick cut about 19 minutes of 2001 immediately after the premiere--could that be what you are referring to? Kubrick claims that he removed the footage because after seeing it a few more times, he felt that it still could be further improved. Although not completely unheard of, to recut the film after it was already in release was still rather unusual. The film premiere was on April 2, 1968, and a week later, instructions were sent to theater owners on what scenes had to be cut out. Perhaps this is where the story about cutting the film with scissors evolved from.

The links below discuss the material that was edited from the film--the second link includes a better description of what was edited after the premiere, which removed some scenes of Poole jogging in the centrifuge, a few shots from the "Dawn of Man" sequence, a sequence of shots where Dave Bowman searches for the replacement antenna part in storage, a scene where HAL severs radio communication between Discovery and Poole's pod before killing him, and some shots of Poole's space walk before he is killed. Future versions of 2001 added some title inserts and a few additional shots. The DVD version of the film is even slightly different as several lines of dialogue have been changed.


There is another good essay on this here.

Apparently Kubrick said he may have the missing scenes in his garage!



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by curme
Wasn't Arthur C. Clarke part of a group of writers hired by the government just to sit around and think of cool ideas? Anyone ever here of that?


No... and niether has Sir Arthur Clarke heard of that. He's been writing scifi since Moses was a corporal and doesn't work for anyone except himself.


Ah, but you and I both personally know someone we've discussed before that was brought in as a "futurist" for a closed military think tank on weaponry development and his only related background was dreaming up toy soldiers.

He also said he wasn't supposed to tell.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Kubrick was hired by the US government to use the studio that he just finished shooting "2001" on.

They wanted footage of US Astronauts bouncing around on the moon.
US agents were the camera crew and the actors.

The concern of the US was that the film taken on the moon would be unusable or destroyed by the vigors of space travel. The US felt that nobody (especially the Soviets) would believe that the US had been to the moon unless they had photographic proof.

In the event that the moon footage didnt work out, Kubricks was to be used.

Ironic that such actions would lead some to believe that they hadnt gone at all.

Source: A CBC Documentary episode of "The Passionate Eye" in which Henry Kissenger, Alexander Haig & his secretary and others.

It is replayed every once and a while, as well as being played on V.O.D. services on Shaw Cable in Canada.

They (Kissenger, Haig et.al.) swear that the footage wasnt used and that they DID go to the moon.

Make of it what you will.

A show worth seeing if you get a chance



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
Alchemical Kubrick

Here's the thread where I originally posted this

www.abovetopsecret.com...


wow, what a well written paper. I never knew so much meaning was hidden within that movie. I must buy the dvd now. I haven't watched the movie since the 70's. Thanks for the link!



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
wow, what a well written paper. I never knew so much meaning was hidden within that movie. I must buy the dvd now. I haven't watched the movie since the 70's. Thanks for the link!


I have seen a similar analysis of this film in the Book "Kubrick" by Michael Ciment (long out of print)

I'm not convinced there is too much "hidden meaning" in the film. Arthur C Clarke said that Stanley was more interested in creating an experience for the viewer rather than explaining anything too much. I think this is why it lends itself to searches for "hidden" meanings, whereas I think the film is designed for you to draw your own conclusions based on whatever personal philosophy is agreeable to you.

I believe this is the real genius of this movie. I regard it as the greatest motion picture ever made, and possibly one of the greatest works of art of the 20th Century.

As far as using the 2001 studio to fake moon landings, I think the way Kubrick treated his props (ordered them destroyed so they couldn't be utilised in any other project) leads me to believe he would never have agreed to this.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by glastonaut]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Wow has anyone noticed Kubrick made 13 films in his lifetime? 13 being a very numerological number.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
That article is quite a read...

I've always been a HUGE Kubrick fan....His work is simply mesmerizing...In a league of its own...

The author must have been doing a play/pause...play/pause style annotation, b/c he frequently explains things that really need no explanation - He simply got caught up in the beauty of the film and began a needless diatribe - But hidden within the excess are some truly valuable pieces of information...

It provides an excellent insight into a film that has always perplexed me - But as was mentioned at the beginning - It simply grabs hold of you and drives to make you question everything around you...



One last interesting note to all of this. The great alchemist Fulcanelli and others have said that a great transmutation of the human species is going to takes place at some time near the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Kubrick picked the date 2001 - which is astonishingly close to other dates prescribed by many ancient alchemists - including Nostradamus. What are we to make of the strange date that Kubrick picked out for the final transformation of the human species?

Could it somehow be the direct results of 9/11? The change of atmosphere in almost all aspects that we once operated under….

Not the event itself, but the ripple effects…



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I dont know much about the missing scene,
maybe it could have been the moon landing, interesting thought!

Ive found this www.kubrick2001.com...
Its an explanation of the film done in flash



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

n 2002, William Karel released a spoof documentary film, Dark Side of the Moon, 'exposing' how Kubrick was recruited to fake the Moon landings, and featured interviews with, among others, Kubrick's widow and a swag of American statesmen including Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld.


From here

This particularly infamous documentary was actually a mockumentary.


It was an elaborate joke: interviews and other footage were presented out of context and in some cases completely staged, with actors playing interviewees who had never existed (and in many cases named after characters from Kubrick's films, just one of many clues included to reveal the joke to the alert viewer).


It was shown on PBS and various other networks.

Thought this might be of interest to some



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Taken from kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com... :


Kubrick himself often trimmed his films up to and even after they were released. He cut out a climactic cream-pie fight from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb before the film was released and shot an entirely new ending.

He cut out 19 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey after its New York premiere to speed up the pacing of certain scenes.

A year after its release, Kubrick trimmed some frames out of A Clockwork Orange to get the rating changed from an X to an R.

And he cut out an epilogue scene from The Shining after it had been playing in New York theaters for five days. Also, he cut another 20 minutes from this film for its international release.

However, since Kubrick made all these cuts himself, and since he had the right of final cut on almost all of his films, none of the cut footage mentioned above has been made available for any video or rerelease versions of any of the films. The international video version of The Shining does restore the 20 minutes cut from the theatrical release.


They do say he was a perfectionist...



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I don't know how much you guys know about the film industry, but to make a long story short, a 'final print' is the reels of film that have been edited to a finished product. There is only one of them until the film makes it to duplication and gets distributed. On a major film, it is literally worth millions of dollars and is the ultimate culmination of the entire budget in a few metal cases. Stanley Kubrik was particularly careful with his final prints, often having motorcades and security ad nauseum to transport his final prints from place to place. Now that said, consider this...
While transporting the final print of 2001, Stanley Kubrik's train was stopped mid-route and boarded by federal agents, and spoke privately to Mr. Kubrik. He literally took a pair of siscors to his final print, cutting out a large amount of footage and handing it over to them. As to what scene was cut or who it was that wanted it removed, is one of many secrets Stanely Kubrik would take to his grave.



that has urban legend written all over it. Why hasn't the book been banned ?



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The Independent carried a story yesterday of how they are publishing a set of interviews that were intended to be screened as a prologue to the movie.

2001: The Secrets of Kubrick's Classic

Hopefully this should give a bit of momentum to the search for the missing scenes. If I know Kubrick he would have kept everything, so they will surface at some point.

I don't think the "cuts on the train" story is true, but probably a distortion of the cuts he made after the premiere.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Was Kubrick a Mason or a member of any other Secret Society Order?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join