Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,865
    Liked
    69 times
    Am I right in thinking that Alex North was due to write the music for Stanley Kubrick's 2001 - Space Odyssey before Kubrick changed his mind and raided the classics?

    Ta Ta

    Marky B (Moonwatcher) thumbs_u

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1
    Liked
    0 times
    Alex North actually wrote a score for the film, based on a temp track of recorded music that Kubrick assembled. I have heard that Kubrick always wanted to use this, and only at the studio's assistance commissioned North. North's friend Jerry Goldsmith released a CD of his score; it's interesting for its similarity to the music used in the film. It's still available through Amazon or what have you.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Country: UK DB7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,605
    Liked
    151 times
    Must-have movies: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)



    The classics that every film-lover will want to own. This week, Marc Lee picks a Stanely Kubrick classic



    At the heart of Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi masterpiece lies a fearful prophecy: that 33 years hence machines will have started to take control. It's a prediction that has been realised in ways unimaginable in the late '60s. Technology has taken over - in Hollywood, at least.



    Today, no studio would consider making a big-budget adventure movie - least of all one about space exploration - without endless vistas of never-quite-convincing computer-generated imagery. In 2001, there is none. Yet its breathtaking special effects remain unsurpassed after a third of a century.



    Ideally, it's a film that should be projected on to as big a screen as possible, but, even in your front room, Kubrick's technical vision, his visual genius is heart-stopping.



    The sepulchral spacecraft - hanging, spinning, floating against the velvet blackness of the cosmos - look real because, unlike the pixelated creations in, say, the last two Star Wars episodes, they are real: models, yes, but still real objects reflecting real light, photographed lovingly, elegantly, majestically.



    A criticism often levelled at the film is that it is cold, emotionally uninvolving, that we don't care about any of the characters. But then it's not a film about people; it's a film about two wholly invented (but convincingly so) moments in history when a mysterious extraterrestrial entity gives the human race a kick up the evolutionary backside.



    Just as importantly, it's a film about spectacle. It is extraordinarily beautiful to look at, from the gorgeous blood-orange sunsets in a long-ago African dreamtime to the final dizzying journey through a galaxy-wide, psychedelic light-storm.



    And, as if all this weren't enough, 2001 also features the most famous and startlingly imaginative jump-cut in movie history as a shot of a bone-weapon flung into the air by a hairy proto-human is matched with a shot of a plunging bone-white spaceship, thus compressing countless millennia of technological development into a snap of the fingers.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Country: Great Britain
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    619
    Liked
    2 times
    <And, as if all this weren't enough, 2001 also features the most famous and startlingly imaginative jump-cut in movie history as a shot of a bone-weapon flung into the air by a hairy proto-human is matched with a shot of a plunging bone-white spaceship, thus compressing countless millennia of technological development into a snap of the fingers.>



    While not has impressive as Kubrick's vision, there is a similar jump cut at the beginning of Powell and Pressburger's A Canterbury Tale. A medieval falconer lets loose his bird of prey which becomes transformed to a Spitfire in a 600-year jump.



    I wonder if the young Stanley saw this in a Bronx cinema in the 40s?

  5. #5
    Administrator Country: Wales Steve Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    29,732
    Liked
    418 times
    Something we've often wondered. Alas, now we'll never know for certain.



    Steve

  6. #6
    Senior Member Country: UK DB7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,605
    Liked
    151 times
    2001: The secrets of Kubrick's classic





    Never-seen-before footage released to the 'IoS' reveals the extraordinary discarded prologue to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. By Anthony Barnes



    Published: 23 October 2005









    It is the missing part of a cinematic classic. Almost four decades ago, Stanley Kubrick gathered the world's scientific minds and asked them to predict the future. Their thoughts would then form the opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey, his epic about a mission to Jupiter which becomes a life or death battle between the space crew and their on-board computer HAL 9000.



    But the interviews were never screened and the collective thoughts of 21 eminent men and women of science appeared to have been lost for ever.



    Now the musings are to be made public for the first time when they are published next month, giving Kubrick enthusiasts an insight into his ultimate vision for the classic film.



    A recluse who died at the age of 70 in 1999 shortly after the completion of his film Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick had a lifelong fascination with the possibility that there was intelligent alien life. He wanted to share his belief with the audience as a scene-setter for his film by allowing them to hear the scientists' own words as they discussed the possibility of benevolent alien cultures, the origins of life and the future of man.



    The interviews, conducted in 1966, reveal the thinking of many of the eminent scientists in an era when man had still to walk on the moon.



    Among those who contributed were the writer and academic Isaac Asimov, the anthropologist Margaret Mead, and the astronomers Fred Whipple and Sir Bernard Lovell. All agreed on the likelihood of there being intelligent life on other worlds, while some spoke of the possibility of genetic manipulation and the development of "ultra-intelligent" computers that could possess personality traits.



    The leading mathematician Jack Good suggested the next stage in human evolution could be the possibility of telepathic communication, an idea accepted by Kubrick at the end of 2001 where the human body becomes redundant.



    Another interviewee, Constantine Generales, suggested the idea of the internet. The physicist Freeman Dyson proposed that we might one day colonise comets, and Asimov spoke of colonies on the moon, Mars or Jupiter.



    But even for Kubrick, not known for the brevity of his films, it became clear his masterpiece would be far too long unless the sequence of thoughts about the future was cut. The US-born director had built up an enviable reputation with hits such as Spartacus, Lolita and Dr Strangelove, but 2001 was a challenge to many cinema-goers when it was released in 1968. Although dazzled by the artistic vision on-screen, which influenced numerous other sci-fi films, they found the film difficult to interpret.



    Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story Sentinel, has admitted: "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."



    Kubrick, who wrote, produced and directed his films, was intrigued by the possibility of other life forms, but was disappointed the film world had until then tackled science fiction by portraying blood-thirsty monsters attacking the earth.



    His long-standing assistant Tony Frewin, who worked with him for 25 years, said: "When the pre-production of 2001 began in 1965, the position of science fiction in cinema was pretty much that idea of Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, bug-eyed monsters and Mars Attacks. When Stanley decided he wanted to make a futuristic science fiction film about the existence of extraterrestrial life it worried him people would see it as just a bug-eyed monster film.



    "So what he decided to do was interview 21 professional scientists for a prologue to show that considering whether there was extraterrestrial life was a legitimate scientific question. Before then, if you spoke of extraterrestrial intelligence people would have simply said 'what, flying saucers?' and all that nonsense. But the film got longer and longer and he realised there wasn't going to be enough time for the prologue, and the film would have to stand on its own two feet, so it was eventually nixed."



    Although long discarded, Frewin wanted to trace the film for a DVD release of 2001, but despite a lengthy search was unable to find any trace. He believes it probably still exists, perhaps mislabelled and sitting with miles of other film reels in a laboratory.



    "Stanley wouldn't have given it away and he wouldn't have destroyed it. He never threw anything away. He still had chequebook stubs going back to the 1940s," said Frewin.



    However, during his search, he found the transcripts of the interviews that had been prepared by Kubrick's secretary, Vicky Ward, to help him in the editing suite. Frewin has now edited them for a book of the complete interviews to be published next month.



    Some of the interviewees have looked back at their original comments. Professor Good stood by his, including his suggestion that computers might have personality traits: "My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic."



    One absentee from the list of interview subjects is the astronomer Carl Sagan, who went on to find fame as the author of the book Cosmos and a spin-off TV series. He responded by saying that he wanted editorial control and a percentage of the film's takings, which was rejected.



    'Are We Alone? The Stanley Kubrick Extraterrestrial Intelligence Interviews' are published on 8 November by Elliott & Thompson





    It is the missing part of a cinematic classic. Almost four decades ago, Stanley Kubrick gathered the world's scientific minds and asked them to predict the future. Their thoughts would then form the opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey, his epic about a mission to Jupiter which becomes a life or death battle between the space crew and their on-board computer HAL 9000.



    But the interviews were never screened and the collective thoughts of 21 eminent men and women of science appeared to have been lost for ever.



    Now the musings are to be made public for the first time when they are published next month, giving Kubrick enthusiasts an insight into his ultimate vision for the classic film.



    A recluse who died at the age of 70 in 1999 shortly after the completion of his film Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick had a lifelong fascination with the possibility that there was intelligent alien life. He wanted to share his belief with the audience as a scene-setter for his film by allowing them to hear the scientists' own words as they discussed the possibility of benevolent alien cultures, the origins of life and the future of man.



    The interviews, conducted in 1966, reveal the thinking of many of the eminent scientists in an era when man had still to walk on the moon.



    Among those who contributed were the writer and academic Isaac Asimov, the anthropologist Margaret Mead, and the astronomers Fred Whipple and Sir Bernard Lovell. All agreed on the likelihood of there being intelligent life on other worlds, while some spoke of the possibility of genetic manipulation and the development of "ultra-intelligent" computers that could possess personality traits.



    The leading mathematician Jack Good suggested the next stage in human evolution could be the possibility of telepathic communication, an idea accepted by Kubrick at the end of 2001 where the human body becomes redundant.



    Another interviewee, Constantine Generales, suggested the idea of the internet. The physicist Freeman Dyson proposed that we might one day colonise comets, and Asimov spoke of colonies on the moon, Mars or Jupiter.



    But even for Kubrick, not known for the brevity of his films, it became clear his masterpiece would be far too long unless the sequence of thoughts about the future was cut. The US-born director had built up an enviable reputation with hits such as Spartacus, Lolita and Dr Strangelove, but 2001 was a challenge to many cinema-goers when it was released in 1968. Although dazzled by the artistic vision on-screen, which influenced numerous other sci-fi films, they found the film difficult to interpret.



    Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story Sentinel, has admitted: "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."



    Kubrick, who wrote, produced and directed his films, was intrigued by the possibility of other life forms, but was disappointed the film world had until then tackled science fiction by portraying blood-thirsty monsters attacking the earth.



    His long-standing assistant Tony Frewin, who worked with him for 25 years, said: "When the pre-production of 2001 began in 1965, the position of science fiction in cinema was pretty much that idea of Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, bug-eyed monsters and Mars Attacks. When Stanley decided he wanted to make a futuristic science fiction film about the existence of extraterrestrial life it worried him people would see it as just a bug-eyed monster film.



    "So what he decided to do was interview 21 professional scientists for a prologue to show that considering whether there was extraterrestrial life was a legitimate scientific question. Before then, if you spoke of extraterrestrial intelligence people would have simply said 'what, flying saucers?' and all that nonsense. But the film got longer and longer and he realised there wasn't going to be enough time for the prologue, and the film would have to stand on its own two feet, so it was eventually nixed."



    Although long discarded, Frewin wanted to trace the film for a DVD release of 2001, but despite a lengthy search was unable to find any trace. He believes it probably still exists, perhaps mislabelled and sitting with miles of other film reels in a laboratory.



    "Stanley wouldn't have given it away and he wouldn't have destroyed it. He never threw anything away. He still had chequebook stubs going back to the 1940s," said Frewin.



    However, during his search, he found the transcripts of the interviews that had been prepared by Kubrick's secretary, Vicky Ward, to help him in the editing suite. Frewin has now edited them for a book of the complete interviews to be published next month.



    Some of the interviewees have looked back at their original comments. Professor Good stood by his, including his suggestion that computers might have personality traits: "My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic."



    One absentee from the list of interview subjects is the astronomer Carl Sagan, who went on to find fame as the author of the book Cosmos and a spin-off TV series. He responded by saying that he wanted editorial control and a percentage of the film's takings, which was rejected.



    'Are We Alone? The Stanley Kubrick Extraterrestrial Intelligence Interviews' are published on 8 November by Elliott & Thompson

  7. #7
    Senior Member Country: Europe
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,373
    Liked
    36 times
    (DB7 @ Oct 24 2005, 12:19 PM)

    2001: The secrets of Kubrick's classic





    Never-seen-before footage released to the 'IoS' reveals the extraordinary discarded prologue to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. By Anthony Barnes



    Published: 23 October 2005

    It is the missing part of a cinematic classic. Almost four decades ago, Stanley Kubrick gathered the world's scientific minds and asked them to predict the future. Their thoughts would then form the opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey, his epic about a mission to Jupiter which becomes a life or death battle between the space crew and their on-board computer HAL 9000.



    But the interviews were never screened and the collective thoughts of 21 eminent men and women of science appeared to have been lost for ever.....



    Now the musings are to be made public for the first time when they are published next month, giving Kubrick enthusiasts an insight into his ultimate vision for the classic film.



    'Are We Alone? The Stanley Kubrick Extraterrestrial Intelligence Interviews' are published on 8 November by Elliott & Thompson
    Brilliant film!



    Looks worth a read,



    Amazon have it due for publication in paperback on 17th November at £10.46



    FELL

  8. #8
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    259
    Liked
    0 times
    (Fellwanderer @ Oct 26 2005, 06:39 PM)

    Brilliant film!



    Looks worth a read.



    Amazon have it due for publication in paperback on 17th November at £10.46



    FELL
    I have an unusual US paperback on the making of 2001 published around 1968-69. Lots of interesting illustrations and photos, but it appeared to have been written by someone on acid.

  9. #9
    Administrator Country: Wales Steve Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    29,732
    Liked
    418 times
    (jacobean @ Nov 8 2005, 01:10 PM)

    I have an unusual US paperback on the making of 2001 published around 1968-69. Lots of interesting illustrations and photos, but it appeared to have been written by someone on acid.
    The book or the film?



    Steve

  10. #10
    Senior Member Country: UK DB7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,605
    Liked
    151 times
    Kubrick: a marketing odyssey





    It took some quick thinking by Mike Kaplan to reassure the 2001 director that his masterpiece was in safe hands. Here, he recounts the rocky start of a long friendship



    Friday November 2, 2007

    The Guardian





    I was the resident longhair in the publicity department of MGM when I first met Stanley Kubrick, in April 1968. I had spent the previous four days canvassing the befuddled media, who were trying to grasp his new film, a non-verbal epic called 2001: A Space Odyssey, and MGM's executives were in fear about the prospects of their most expensive film to date and, consequently, their future.



    Roger Carras, Kubrick's promotion executive, was taking me to meet the great man to explain to him why the film was near unanimously misunderstood. It was being presented as "an epic drama of adventure and exploration", and many were expecting a modern Flash Gordon. Instead, Kubrick had created a metaphysical drama encompassing evolution, reincarnation, the beauty of space, the terror of science, the mystery of mankind. The campaign had to be reconceived and repositioned - an impossible task unless Kubrick, who had complete control of his work, could be convinced this was vital to save his film from impending disaster and devastating reviews.



    Article continues

    We were in the midst of the 1960s youth revolution. Friends in the underground press had already seen 2001 several times, exhilarated by his film-making, some nicely stoned. After my first confused reaction, compounded by false anticipation and intense company pressure, I walked out of the second screening elated, knowing 2001 was an experience challenging conventional movie audiences and traditional critical values.



    And so Roger took me to the projection booth of Loew's Capitol Theatre in New York on the night of the movie's premiere. The Capitol's inner lobby was decorated with a fanciful garden created for MGM's previous roadshow attraction, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. As Roger and I crossed the fairytale bridge that led to the door of the projection booth, the incongruity of the atmosphere and my trepidation at finally talking to Stanley Kubrick was dizzying. My stomach was in knots.



    He had just gone through the red-carpet frenzy - the last time he would attend one of his world premieres - and was checking the technical state of the Cinerama equipment. The "Dawn of Man" sequence had ended as we entered the large booth. He was standing casually next to one of the massive projectors, bow-tie undone, dinner jacket opened, his editors behind him.



    "Stanley," Roger said buoyantly as we approached, "this is Mike Kaplan, whom I told you about." I reached out to shake his hand. Kubrick kept his in his pockets. The tension was palpable. I was the potential enemy in his den; my sincerity irrelevant. There would be no handshake. It was an existential confrontation.



    His laser-like eyes locked mine: "Why doesn't Pauline Kael like my movie?" My mind raced. I had been nervous enough rehearsing what to say. He was famous for hustling chess games in his youth and had made a bold, surprising first move. Despite Roger's preparation about my passion for what should be done, this was his test of what I should know. Forget this upstart and his theories. Kael, the film critic of the New Yorker, was the most influential critic of the time.



    Kael, however, wasn't a contact of mine. I had enough to keep up with the newspaper, broadcast media and wire services which were my purview. I read Pauline infrequently; found her analysis invigorating when I agreed with her and condescending when I didn't. I favoured her counterpart on the opposite side of the critical spectrum, Andrew Sarris, who had championed the auteur theory of film criticism in America and reviewed for the Village Voice, the New York alternative weekly. These were the days when critics held their opinions close to their chests and never saw a film more than once. From the brief message received by Joanna Ney, my close colleague and Kael's contact at MGM, and from the expression on the face of writer Dick Albarino, a friend who had accompanied Pauline to the first screening - and who was sworn to secrecy about her reaction - it was apparent she was going to be brutal. But no one knew specifics.



    I felt the fate of the film was in the heavy air holding Kubrick's question. My answer had to meet his challenge. Perhaps a minute elapsed. Triggered by a survival instinct from some deep memory recess, I countered, "She thought The Bible was the best movie of the year." Our eyes didn't move but his body shifted slightly. It was my acknowledgment. We talked for the next two hours through to the end of the film and watched the mystified charity audience file out. Then we shook hands.



    It was the beginning of an enduring friendship and my most commercially successful professional relationship. What cemented it was a marketing tactic that initiated the turning of 2001 into a cultural phenomenon. Besides Kael and Sarris, the major critical voices who could affect a film's success were the New York Times and the bright and bristling Judith Crist, the most widely known critic in the country, who reviewed for the New York Herald Tribune, the Today Show, the highest-rated morning television programme, and TV Guide, the country's largest circulation magazine. No critic ever had a larger audience.



    Crist, a long-time supporter of Kubrick, was negative, reflecting the opinions of her newspaper colleagues who thought 2001 long, boring and impenetrable. The New York Times had named a new critic at the beginning of the year, Renata Adler, a novelist of note, whose film tastes were still unknown. (She would shortly compare the monolith to a Hershey chocolate bar.) Kael was on the attack and Sarris, whose views could signal an alternative force to marshal, would appear last. We were down three with one unknown. It was desperate.



    Then, the unexpected. The Christian Science Monitor, the highly respected national newspaper based in Boston, published an elegantly designed full-page essay by John Allen, declaring the film a masterpiece with Kubrick reinventing the medium. This was the breakthrough, coming from a distinguished newspaper with substantial weight to balance the establishment consensus. Combined with a bubbling movement from the counterculture media, and the near-unprecedented second review by Newsday's Joseph Gelmis reversing his negative opinion within days of his first (only Newsweek's Joe Morgenstern had ever done this previously with his Bonnie and Clyde switch), the Monitor piece could refocus the film's future.



    When the film came out, Stanley set up an office in the conference room on the 26th floor of the MGM building. Tearsheets of ads and reviews from every publication lined the walls. The Monitor essay had to be reprinted immediately, as an ad in the following Sunday's New York Times (Adler's weak review had just appeared) and for insurance sake, in the next issue of the Village Voice, in case Sarris was negative. Most importantly, it had to be read as an editorial; it could not look like an advertisement. The only commercial information would be a discreet line at the very end stating "2001: A Space Odyssey is showing at Loew's Capitol theatre."



    Stanley got it immediately. Our plan was that I'd make the case and he'd play back-up if necessary. My boss bought the concept; there was nothing to lose. Business was well below average for a major release. And I was the film's designated point man, having Kubrick's trust. Advertising layouts were ordered immediately. But when the mock-ups arrived, I was shaken. Instead of an editorial look, the Monitor reprint was contained within the standard corporate information: MGM credits and the distinctive unfolding Cinerama logo fought the copy. It was too radical to remove the studio's corporate identity. The intended impact would be lost.



    Stanley made his move. Privately, he went to the studio bosses to talk about the film's future openings, saw the mock-ups, and walked out with the layout we wanted - his calm logic prevailing. The advertising agency also delivered with placement. On Sunday, the piece appeared opposite the New York Times' main film page, making it look like a two-page editorial spread. There was nothing stating it was a paid ad. On Thursday, it ran opposite Sarris' lengthy negative review in the Village Voice. The campaign to turn the tide was engaged.



    During the next four years, from the release of 2001, through its relaunch a year later with my "Ultimate Trip"/Starchild campaign, and the release of A Clockwork Orange (Stanley had asked me to leave MGM to work directly with him), we talked and strategised film distribution daily. We remained in close contact afterwards, watching Barry Lyndon with the American ratings chief in the large Shepperton screening room with his newly completed print; I visited the set of The Shining and later tried to persuade him to change the ad and slogan; I called him after seeing Full Metal Jacket to say I broke down at the visceral impact of the graveside scene, because my mother had died months before (he said, "There's nothing worse; it's like being hit in the head with a sledgehammer"). From then on periodically - I'd get a call and we'd speak for an hour or more as if it were yesterday.



    Our last conversation was in 1994. I was at the Edinburgh festival, where Luck, Trust & Ketchup, my documentary about Robert Altman, was being shown. I had sent him a copy and was eager for his thoughts. He said it was "very good" then quickly moved to The Whales of August, which I had produced a few years before. "Who directed it?" he asked. (I knew he knew.) "Lindsay Anderson." "Oh, yes, I knew it was a good director. How did it do?"



    It had been badly distributed, except for Japan, the only territory that followed my marketing campaign, where it played for a year and a half in Tokyo. He was intrigued and then described in detail how for Full Metal Jacket he had changed the way films were announced and released in Japan. Instituting new distribution methods fascinated Stanley as much as film-making, which he also called "an exercise in problem solving".



    Next Friday, the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the British Film Institute will present a joint tribute to Kubrick at BFI Southbank, hosted by Malcolm McDowell. At the same time, in the same building, Never Apologise, Malcolm's tour de force celebration of Lindsay Anderson, which I directed, will be showing.



    More than anything, I'd be eager for Stanley's thoughts, to hear his coy chuckles, and to have another long, creative dialogue on the art of making and marketing movies.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,865
    Liked
    69 times
    And, as if all this weren't enough, 2001 also features the most famous and startlingly imaginative jump-cut in movie history as a shot of a bone-weapon flung into the air by a hairy proto-human is matched with a shot of a plunging bone-white spaceship, thus compressing countless millennia of technological development into a snap of the fingers.>



    While not has impressive as Kubrick's vision, there is a similar jump cut at the beginning of Powell and Pressburger's A Canterbury Tale. A medieval falconer lets loose his bird of prey which becomes transformed to a Spitfire in a 600-year jump.



    I wonder if the young Stanley saw this in a Bronx cinema in the 40s?
    I like the Monty Python version,with an ape smashing up bones,throwing the stick in the air where it turns into a space ship. The next thing you see is the ape walking away whistling,and the spaceships plummets down to his head.

    Ta Ta

    Marky B

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3
    Liked
    0 times
    All time classic, but was when they released 2010, was disappointed.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    282
    Liked
    0 times
    I read the book about the making of the film. There was it seemed so much that was cut out of the version that I saw here.

  14. #14
    Member Country: Spain
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10
    Liked
    0 times
    One of my all time favourite films. I worked with British FX sculptor Colin Arthur, who make the ape suit and make up, with Stuart Freeborn, and he told me how demanding Kubrick was: they were working on that, and filming makeup tests something like 6 months until Kubrick was happy with it.



    He still has one of the original ape masks from the film.



    Domingo

  15. #15
    Junior Member Country: England
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9
    Liked
    0 times
    One of my all time favourite films. I worked with British FX sculptor Colin Arthur, who make the ape suit and make up, with Stuart Freeborn, and he told me how demanding Kubrick was: they were working on that, and filming makeup tests something like 6 months until Kubrick was happy with it.



    He still has one of the original ape masks from the film.



    Domingo
    The story goes that 2001 lost out on an Oscar for best Costume Design, to Planet of the Apes because they believed the apes in 2001 were real!

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    234
    Liked
    0 times
    One of my all time favourite films. I worked with British FX sculptor Colin Arthur, who make the ape suit and make up, with Stuart Freeborn, and he told me how demanding Kubrick was: they were working on that, and filming makeup tests something like 6 months until Kubrick was happy with it.



    He still has one of the original ape masks from the film.



    Domingo
    Were you based at MGM borehamwood..

  17. #17
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    151
    Liked
    0 times
    You might like to know - Tesco's are currently selling this for 3 quid!

  18. #18
    Member Country: Spain
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10
    Liked
    0 times
    Arthur C Clarke recalls about that:



    "The makeup problems could be solved as Stuart Freeborn later showed with his brilliant work on the ape-men. (To my fury, at the 1969 Academy Awards a special Oscar was presented for makeup to Planet of the Apes! I wondered, as loudly as possible, whether the judges had passed over 2001 because they thought we used real apes.) "



    Domingo

  19. #19
    Member Country: Spain
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10
    Liked
    0 times
    They started out with the concept of Neanderthal type prosthetic make-up.

    That means they have to deal with showing naked men and women with exposed genitals. That couldn�t be possible obviously, so they need to show the actors with at least some minimal clothing. Kubrick didn�t like the idea because they wanted to show that prehistoric humans had not any kind of technology until they got contact with the Monolith, so the Neanderthal was abandoned and they went back in time to a more ape-man character with the body all cover with hair. After some more makeup tests, they got the final ape suit and make up, witch in my opinion was superior to the �Planet of the apes� make up.



    Here there go some photos of the process

    The Neanderthal make up with nice shoes.

    Stuart freeborn working on the ape mask.

    The make up Master Stuart Freeborn with his final ape creations.







    Domingo










  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1
    Liked
    0 times
    hi there

    clavious conference room (moon scene)

    can you tell me why do you think they decorate this room like lower ciling and 3 white screen

    also what is the reason for this part .

    can you analise the screen of this part plase

    bulent

    many thanks

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Story of Film: An Odyssey (More4)
    By DB7 in forum British Television
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 09-05-12, 08:55 PM
  2. Seeing into space
    By jimw1 in forum Off-Topic Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-09-10, 01:51 PM
  3. Rare 2001: A Space Odyssey items AUCTION
    By smudge in forum General Film Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-08-10, 07:28 PM
  4. sitcom set in space
    By Widescreen in forum Can You Name This Film
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14-10-09, 06:10 PM
  5. They Came From Beyond Space
    By Lord Brett in forum British Films and Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-09-09, 12:23 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts