STANLEY KUBRICK,WHAT DID HE KNOW?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:30 am

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 10:04 am » by Darrylmckay


Firstly I have to admit I have not read this topic or its posts, just the title, the answer is this.

What did Stanley Kubrick Know--- if its a question about acting ability, the answer is absolutly nothing, after all he cast Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in a movie, two of the worst actors of all time*.

*Note- I do not include Keanu Reeves because I do not consider him to be an actor, of any sort.
I will respect your beliefs*, I will research your beliefs, but dont expect me to believe.
* disclaimer-user makes no commitment to live up to this claim

Conspirator
Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:28 am

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 10:25 am » by Drextin


I'm not a moon hoax person..............but I don't ignore the fact that we were capable of faking them............

If you look at the effects used for 2001 you can't help but be amazed at the level of expertise that was shown. this was 1969 and it was more than 25 years and the advent of computer effects before anyone even got close to what he did on that film.

Now look lets move on to another famous film of his that might shed even more light on the subject.............

Dr.Strangelove.
There are combat scenes in that movie that if not known would seem to be old archival WW2 film. They were not. Kubrick was fascinated by realism in film. He shot those scenes as though it was done by combat photographers/filmmakers to give it the sense of realism. Spielberg copied this style for Saving Private Ryan years later.He loved to use lenses that were only used for news gathering instead of the normal cinematic lengths adding to the realism. So given that Kubrick was into using filmmaking skills to present fantasy as fact............would he not have been the best choice for the moon hoax?
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:01 am

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 10:55 am » by Nik418


Well as an adjunct to the Kubrick faked moon landing thing - the bit in 'Diamonds Are Forever' (67 or 68) where Sean Connery's Bond nicks a moon buggy from a mocked-up moonscape in the Nevada desert (complete with astronauts in space suits) is supposedly a sly wink to those in the know that the upcoming moon landings were gonna be a Hollywood production - this scene does not appear in the book and has very little to do with the plot of the movie either so draw your own conclusions!

brillbilly

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 6:09 pm » by brillbilly


thanks all for ya input still doing homework lol@ DREX. Do you know if it was true that he borrowed a 1 of a kind nasa lense to shoot his 2001 and in return did nasa use his filmset for some purpose? :cheers:

Conspirator
Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:28 am

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 6:20 pm » by Drextin


brillbilly wrote:thanks all for ya input still doing homework lol@ DREX. Do you know if it was true that he borrowed a 1 of a kind nasa lense to shoot his 2001 and in return did nasa use his filmset for some purpose? :cheers:

The story goes brill that nasa was afraid that they wouldn't be able to send back live pictures from the moon so they enlisted Kubrick and some others to film false footage in case it didn't work out. In return Kubrick who was a lens freak got a nasa lens to film Barry Lyndon. Which was another movie he was trying to get a fair amount of realism out of.

Kubric was a photographer before he got into films which is why he was so focused(excuse the pun) on lenses.

His wife swears by the story and others have said they knew where the lens came from on the set...............so its one of those things that makes you wonder how deep it might have went.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

brillbilly

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 6:28 pm » by brillbilly


drextin wrote:
brillbilly wrote:thanks all for ya input still doing homework lol@ DREX. Do you know if it was true that he borrowed a 1 of a kind nasa lense to shoot his 2001 and in return did nasa use his filmset for some purpose? :cheers:

The story goes brill that nasa was afraid that they wouldn't be able to send back live pictures from the moon so they enlisted Kubrick and some others to film false footage in case it didn't work out. In return Kubrick who was a lens freak got a nasa lens to film Barry Lyndon. Which was another movie he was trying to get a fair amount of realism out of.

Kubric was a photographer before he got into films which is why he was so focused(excuse the pun) on lenses.

His wife swears by the story and others have said they knew where the lens came from on the set...............so its one of those things that makes you wonder how deep it might have went.

thanks drex and im glad i asked ya as i value your points of view,im here to lern mate and this place has offerd so much info by down to earth people like you.im greatfull man and to all who take time to try to fit peaces in to so many jigsaws thanks :cheers:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 8:13 pm

PostTue Jul 07, 2009 9:45 pm » by Blacky


Interesting post Brillbilly!
Dont know much about this one, going have to go and do some research myself on it! :headscratch:
:cheers:
Image


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook