2001

> 2001

How the fuck were this movie's technicals so good 50 years ago? I mean, they hold up tremendously and everything else from the era looked bush league compared to 2001.

that was FIFTEEN years ago, dumbass.

He cared and worked with people who cared. Look at it as a piece of art, not just a movie.

No, it was filmed in the 60s.

Kek

Made me laugh

you wanna know how? by nit ha ing any interesting plot or characters whatsoever

because practical effects, models, miniatures, etc are fucking god-tier if done right and literally fucking timeless.

Go away, Down's.

Good practical effects and matte paintings hold up a lot better than cgi. That stuff ages like milk.

Very true. Just look at The Thing and Predator. And then Alien and Terminator. Perfection.

There's a name for the phenomena, but I don't remember it.

Basically, as quality increased, "cheapness" became associated with reality. Like a polaroid of something is more believable than a digital picture these days, because everyone knows/assumes things are easily photoshopped.

Regardless of the fact that you could still fake whatever is in the polaroid with practical effects, people are more likely to believe that the polaroid is genuine. Same thing with shitty camcorder recordings, etc.

CGI is too 'perfect' and jarring because it lacks some of that crude reality.

Obviously good practical effects age better than CGI but Kubrick also demanded wherever possible that all the special effects shots be done "in-camera" i.e. no use of green/bluescreen and optical printing intermediates which degrades the image quality, which is why they also preferred front projecting instead of compositing things in later. Look at any movie from that time that uses greenscreen and you'll see how shit it looks now, even the flying compositing in Superman which came out a decade later looks bad. Add to the fact that it was the first time that computerized motion control was used for multiple passes/exposure.

Because it's actually hell.

yup.

theres some truth here and i think its a good segway to the film vs. digital argument. in my opinion, digital looks like shit (especially in high light) precisely because of the reasons you mentioned, and everything ends up looking overexposed. it also doesnt seem to have the right texture, like, at all. 35mm and especially 65mm blow it the fuck out in this regard.

clarity is NOT everything.

Miniatures > CGI every time.

too bad the movie hasnt got anything else going for it

...

He helped fake moon landing what you expect

there it is

because jews already know all the technology they are slowly revealing it to make profits out of it then they destroy everything and start all over again every few thousand years.

That's what happens when you let artists make films instead of money greedy hogs.

People who seem to think that, usually haven't watched it.

Are you surprised when people care about a project and put years of their time and effort into something, that it comes out really good...?

Gr8 b8 m8
I fell for it though sooooo