The Kubrick interviews

[James Steven Beverly]

I loved Kubrick's work. I don't know if anyone saw these but I thought I'd throw em up here so others could maybe get an insite into the nature of his genius:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzO_sLnfrg8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mQl3Y8_PyE&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL2MBYKTeA0&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ72w4VgSUg&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ72w4VgSUg&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhcEbXowroA&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxY2CHxDug&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxY2CHxDug&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80lyG8h5IQc&feature=related

 

 

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.aco.html

 

http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html

 

http://www.terrysouthern.com/archive/SKint.htm

 

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/film/reading_room/126.an_interview_with_stanley_kubrick.1.htm

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html

[David S Carroll]

Thanks James! Much appreciated!!

[Kieran Scannell]

yes, Thanks James, Just kind of gets you thinking again about what you do every day (and more importantly what you'd like to be doing) He set the bar, and It's sad to think there will never be another Stanley Kubrick film.

 

 

 

Thanks James! Much appreciated!!

[James Steven Beverly]

Being unique is a gift. I think THAT is his true legacy. He was a control freak because he had a maniacal compulsion to see HIS vision through. I once heard a story that he fired a camera assistant because the man was carrying a mag upside down, THAT was his dedication to perfection. What we can learn from Kubrick is to strive for MORE than we are capable of and there is an enormous power in that.

[Joe Taylor]

Wow! Thanks, James, for posting these links!

[Thomas James]

Stanely Kubrick did a great job of butchering the movie 2001. The original movie was based on a true story and featured an atomic powered Orion drive developed by the United States Air Force and championed by Werner Von Braun in order to propel a spacehip bound to Saturn by means of atomic explosions. When Arthur C. Clarke proposed the idea of an Orion drive to Stanely Kubrick it was rejected because Kubrick did not want to be ridiculed as a Doctor Strangelove. Now thanks to Kubrick the year 2001 passed by without any exciting manned missions to Saturn or Jupiter because our conventional rockets lack the power to do the job.

[Mark Dunn]

Stanley Kubrick WROTE the original story.

Orion was devised by Stanislav Ulam, not von Braun.

Discovery is nuclear powered, but an ion drive rather than nuclear pulse a la Orion.

The only accurate part of your post is Kubrick's rejection of nuclear pulse as being too close for comfort to the ending of 'Strangelove' ('We won't meet again').

The rest is tosh as I suspect you well know; if not I suggest you read up a bit.

No-one 'butchered' 2001. It was Kubrick's creation from start to finish. Clarke knew it. Everyone knows it. That fact, you can learn.

[James Steven Beverly]

Stanely Kubrick did a great job of butchering the movie 2001. The original movie was based on a true story and featured an atomic powered Orion drive developed by the United States Air Force and championed by Werner Von Braun in order to propel a spacehip bound to Saturn by means of atomic explosions. When Arthur C. Clarke proposed the idea of an Orion drive to Stanely Kubrick it was rejected because Kubrick did not want to be ridiculed as a Doctor Strangelove. Now thanks to Kubrick the year 2001 passed by without any exciting manned missions to Saturn or Jupiter because our conventional rockets lack the power to do the job.

You know, I read 2001 in high school, it wasn't an assignment, I just wanted to read it and quite frankly, Kubrick's interpretation was magnificent. yes the ending was a little hard to understand unless you read the book but the ideas expressed where a little complicated for a purely visual statement and I doubt ANY director could have done more with it under those restrictions than Kubrick did. Steve King hated what Kubrick did with The Shining, but you take a look at King's mini-series version and Kubrick's version and then tell me which is more effective. The biggest problem with the manned space program is people don't understand just how much it has given to us in practical application. EVERY time there is an economic downturn they cut NASA's budget, ignoring the hard facts that the US space program has given us everything from personal computers to medical breakthroughs. Of course your assertions that Kubrick hindered the space program is absurd, if anything, Kubrick helped to fuel this nation's love of space exploration, not the other way around, The COLD WAR killed nuclear rockets more so, besides, Nuclear rockets are not practical, ION engines are what's gonna take us to the outer solar system, mark my words. BUT I digress, back to Stanley!!

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

You know, I read 2001 in high school, it wasn't an assignment, I just wanted to read it and quite frankly, Kubrick's interpretation was magnificent. yes the ending was a little hard to understand unless you read the book but the ideas expressed where a little complicated for a purely visual statement and I doubt ANY director could have done more with it under those restrictions than Kubrick did. Steve King hated what Kubrick did with The Shining, but you take a look at King's mini-series version and Kubrick's version and then tell me which is more effective. The biggest problem with the manned space program is people don't understand just how much it has given to us in practical application. EVERY time there is an economic downturn they cut NASA's budget, ignoring the hard facts that the US space program has given us everything from personal computers to medical breakthroughs. Of course your assertions that Kubrick hindered the space program is absurd, if anything, Kubrick helped to fuel this nation's love of space exploration, not the other way around, The COLD WAR killed nuclear rockets more so, besides, Nuclear rockets are not practical, ION engines are what's gonna take us to the outer solar system, mark my words. BUT I digress, back to Stanley!!

 

 

As stated in the prior post, but perhaps needing clarification. Kubricks film is not an interpretation of the book. The book was a Novelization of the film. Kubrick is the man behind the story Clarke was a collaborator and the man behind the bulk of the science. Clarke wrote later that "the nearest approximation to the complicated truth" is that the screenplay should be credited to "Kubrick and Clarke" and the novel to "Clarke and Kubrick".

Edited June 7, 2010 by Trevor Swaim

[James Steven Beverly]

As stated in the prior post, but perhaps needing clarification. Kubricks film is not an interpretation of the book. The book was a Novelization of the film. Kubrick is the man behind the story Clarke was a collaborator and the man behind the bulk of the science. Clarke wrote later that "the nearest approximation to the complicated truth" is that the screenplay should be credited to "Kubrick and Clarke" and the novel to "Clarke and Kubrick".

Regardless, without reading the book, the "Star child" sequence is almost indecipherable. Most people are like "Huh?? :huh: What the hell was that all about."

[Thomas James]

The problem with ion engines and even nuclear ion drives is that although these engines have excellent specific impulse or fuel economy they lack the thrust that an atomic bomb explosion can provide. The thrust of an ion engine is rather like a puff and it takes a long time for these engines to gather the momentum and speed required for fast interplanetary travel. Ion engines are also totally useless for ground launched rockets,

[James Steven Beverly]

It's probably not an either/or situation. It's more likely at this point to use both, first chemical rockets to bring the components into space. These assembled in orbit and fueled then fired into a slingshot trajectory to gather speed then shut down as it is in that trajectory and as it head into a deep space course the ion engines are engaged and run until the halfway point at which time the craft is turned around 180 deg and the ion engines are restarted for a gradual slowdown to a reasonable speed at which point the the chemical rockets take over and are used for a return trip in conjunction with ion engines. Another possibilities are solar sails. They can theoretically accelerate to near the speed of light. If one could figure out how to tack on the solar winds, one might even be able to get home with them. ;)

[Thomas James]

Arthur C. Clarke has stated that chemical rockets are far too feeble to bring significant payloads into Earth Orbit and that we need atomic energy such as Orion because atomic energy is thousands if not millions of times more powerfull than chemical energy. Clarke has stated that because of a lack of atomic energy the space age has not even begun.