knight@rlgvax.UUCP (Steve Knight) (05/07/84)
> there was a very specific reason why bowman & poole & hal & co. went to > jupiter and not iapetus in 2001. doug trumbull did up a > saturn for kubrick and kubrick didn't like it--wasn't colorful enough for > him. so trumbull made up a jupiter, turned up thehue and intensity a > little, and kubrick decided jupiter was better. i always resented the > guy for that. the switch greatly damaged the credibility of the movie as > sf, and all for the sake of bands on a plaster planet. urrkh. > this from a book by jerome agel (i think; it's been years) called > the making of 2001 or something like that. Did we read the same book? As I recall, the problem was that they simply could not come up with a believable way of representing the rings, and it was a collective decision (on both Kubrick's and Trumbull's parts) to switch to a planet that was easier to produce *believably* on film (i.e., better a good Jupiter than a poor Saturn). I have a difficult time believing that someone like Kubrick, who approached making "2001" with as much integrity as he did, would turn fickle over whether he liked the colours or not. -- "If you lived here, you'd be home by now." Steve Knight {seismo,allegra,some other sites}!rlgvax!knight
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (05/11/84)
I share Steve Knight's recollection that Jerry Agel's book says
that Kubrick and Trumbull didn't use Saturn because they couldn't
reproduce it believably on film.
Besides I tend to react badly to articles written entirely in
lower-case..
--
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc
"I'm a citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"