Users Online Now:
2,125
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
598,115
Pageviews Today:
1,067,601
Threads Today:
521
Posts Today:
8,261
11:58 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
**How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 842122:MV8xMDA5NDM3XzE1OTI1MjUxXzE2RUEyQ0ZD] And as far as Kubrick's style... You wrote that the writer of the essay seemed to display a pretty good grasp of his style (granted, I've paraphrased what you said, here) and you pointed out specifically what he had to say about the projection-work on "2001". First, that technique has been used by legions of filmmakers and was [i]not[/i] at all a relevant characteristic of Kubrick's filmmaking style. Various techniques of using projection aren't usually indicative of a filmmaker's visual aesthetic ever, really. They [i]can[/i] be. Basically, [i]anything[/i] CAN be. It depends on the filmmaker. But it's not the first thing that pops in my mind when I think of Kubrick's style. It was a [i]technique[/i] that he used. Not that he didn't use it well. But what I mean when I reference his "style" is: the visual and aesthetic way in which he used his camera (along with his actors, lighting, special effects, ect. but specifically [i]his camera[/i]) to tell his story, consistently, film after film. Most great filmmakers have [i]very[/i] distinct styles. Not that you [i]have to have[/i] a distinct style to be a great filmmaker. Sidney Lumet comes to mind. But there [i]are[/i] filmmakers- Ozu, Altman, Scorsese, Kurosawa, Bresson, the Coens, Gilliam, even Woody Allen, among [i]many[/i] others who, after randomly clicking onto a channel playing [i]any[/i] of their films, after 5 minutes (maybe less) you [i]will[/i] be able to tell what you're watching is one of THEIR films. The way Altman's camera slowly zooms across frames crowded with many characters overlapping each other's dialogue. The way Ozu's camera almost NEVER moves and is hardly ever higher than 3 feet off the ground while the actors speak their dialogue directly into it. Scorsese's dynamic camera movements and kinetic editing (with the help of Thelma Schoonmaker, of course). AND YES, Kubrick's unmistakable style. MANY tracking shots, left-to-right, right-to-left. LOTS of wide-angle lenses. LOTS of zooming in and out. I could go on, but those are the fundamentals. I'd have to get into specific scenes and shots and...it's late and I'm tired. But this visual style combined with his innate misanthropy and cynicism (expressed through the scripts for his films which he often wrote or co-wrote and his method of working with actors) resulted in Kubrick having one of the most instantly-recognizable visual and aesthetic styles of any filmmaker in history, in my opinion. And there isn't a shred of it [i]anywhere[/i] in a single frame of the moon-footage. When would he have even [i]had time[/i] to do phony-moon-landing footage for NASA? How could he have done [i]that[/i] and pre-production/production on "2001" simultaneously? Not to mention "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and then "Barry Lyndon" (1974) (unless we're to believe he shot ALL the moon footage in the late 60's)..... (?) Again, a film director's style is the same thing as his [i]fingerprints[/i]. And Kubrick's fingerprints are no where near the moon-footage. I am genuinely intrigued, though, if anyone can give a plausible, reasonable explanation- [i]how he could've done pre-production/production on "2001" AND the "moon-footage" at the same time. THAT concept fascinates me. Prove it.[/i] [/quote]
Original Message
It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked.
This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked.
Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.
Link to Lengthy Essay: [
link to jayweidner.com
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>