“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style. What do you know about his filming style?”
1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.
1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped
1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)
1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.
As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.
http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html
Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.
Not only that, but who filmed the other sequels? You can tell, if you know directors, the difference in style between--for example--even for-hire Spielberg and, say, Joe Johnston (I can't think of any sequels to Kubrick films, much less any Kubrick sequels!), or even Spielberg-trying-to-Kubrick. So suddenly, all a director is for is directing special effects, a
huge waste of talent, but they took Kubrick's time for the first two Apollos and then let him go off and direct another movie instead of continuing with the series?
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.
What a load.
Indeed. Definitely someone who knows nothing about Kubrick, either as a person or a director.
The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.
That is all in your head. It has no intersection with reality.wa
There's a frankly not-very-good documentary on the subject, and about several other possible things "proven" by
The Shining. I watched the documentary, and the only evidence I saw in that movie was that Kubrick doesn't know much about baking powder.
“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”
I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?
Yeah, you missed that one.
Funny how these people know so much about Apollo without ever really doing research on the Apollo record, isn't it?
“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”
No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.
Wander along with a stupid notion and then complain that said stupid notion is mocked? You are somehow surprised?
I
think this is another one of mine, and I'd use the word "charlatan" again. While I do believe that a majority of the people who think Apollo was hoaxed was really do believe it, they flatly do not have the skill level they're claiming. Once again, we've hit here on a topic I really do know about. I know a lot about film, and a certain amount about Kubrick in particular. (I'm not a huge fan, but you can't avoid discussion of him in film circles, you know?) And it's become quite clear that Cambo knows
nothing about filmmaking, very little about Kubrick, and nowhere near as much as he's claiming about special effects. That means he fits the dictionary definition of a charlatan. And that's before we get into the people who are just making Apollo claims to fleece the hoax believers.
