I had created a number of models from 2001 A Space Odyssey and wanted to do something with them. Created and rendered in Cinema 4D and put together in Sony Movie Studio 12.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="102">1:42</a> Love the inclusion of the city lights here. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="189">3:09</a> Love this shot as the shuttle flies in from the foreground.
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
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!!!
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.
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.
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?
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'"
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.
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 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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A very creditable effort. Sadly, I feel it's missing the essential balletic nature of the original sequences. It just feels too clinical somehow. I'm sorry. You've clearly put a huge amount of effort into this, the modelling is really beautiful! Thanks for sharing this.
Nunca mais fui o mesmo. Tinha onze anos, via os adultos discutindo o filme, os estudantes filosofando. Isso tudo para.mim, começando a pensar, me levou muito longe. Do rádio da vovó aos computadores nano. Minha geração viu tudo. Só não.percebeu que ainda só temos essa bolinha azul chamada Terra. O mais é solidão absurda no universo.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="224">3:44</a> 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.
Great job, but a shame you didn’t correct the error in the space station rotation - it changes from clockwise to anticlockwise, same as in the original movie…
Good work. I like the way part of the middle "axle" of the space station is rotating faster than the rest, <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="163">2:43</a>.
Ouch <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="255">4:15</a> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
