I think actual, physical effects are far more impressive and fun to watch then CGI. CGI is nice and can do a lot, but in the end you know it is computer generated and thus not as impressive. That jogging scene in 2001 is still amazing to this day.
I think computer graphics are so advanced now that you can watch a movie and suspend belief without getting caught up in CGI. When watching the original Star wars movie, the lighting passes were often misaligned and moving about. That is pretty distracting too (though I like it for nostalgia).
The film raised the bar for sci-fi special effects by a factor of a million, and turned the Sci-Fi genre from cheesy, cheap kid's garbage to sophisticated and respected overnight. It inspired a generation of filmmakers to the possibilities of film.
@@johnedwards1321 Well, yes. But the special effects were very much along the lines of the current b-movie science fiction (no not impressive at all). It looks like a b-sci fi film with a budget. 2001 looks like what the future might actually look like, and it still holds up. Fantastic Voyage certainly didn't have any real impact on budding filmmakers at all, and had no impact on how science fiction films were seen (which is unfortunate, since I'm a big Isaac Asimov fan). 2001 changed the sci-fi film from men in gorilla costumes and fishbowls on their heads capturing fainting women to a serious film genre. It inspired George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, etc. It really did change filmmaking. Fantastic Voyage...didn't.
@@Ocrilat I agreed completly. I just think that FV is often overlooked. It's special effects don't hold up, clearly, but it was a bond concept and the Proteus was a very cool ship ( apparent from the paper maps instead of fancy computer read-outs). In fact, I think one of the genuinely brilliant moves in 2001 was the absence of knobs and dials, a merely relied on screens with colorful and stark letters and numbers as control mechanisms which keep it fully up to date no matter what the most recent iterations of iPad's look like. The clean no-bullshit interiors truly sell the whole thing. Anyway, thanks. This was fun. Cheers, John
Very well said! 2001: A Space Odyssey is a groundbreaking and revolutionary film in so many different ways and I agree with everything that you said! Yes, it raised the bar for sci-fi special effects, yes, it changed the Sci-Fi genre and made people take it seriously as a respected and sophisticated artform and yes, it inspired a generation of filmmakers! I would also say the movie also inspired future scientists, inventors, engineers, astronauts, technicians, doctors, authors, artists, and people in a variety of different career fields. I'm an aspiring author( and comic book writer and illustrator) and 2001 has been a big influence for the kinds of books and comic books that I want to write!
All this techniques were (at least) a decade old when Kubrik made 2001. Royal Weddings in 1951 used a rotative set Oskar Fischinger invented the technique used in Vertigo and 2001 Projection techniques using mirrors were common in the 40s and 50s What i mean is that it's ok to try to make people aware of 2001 as an spectacular achievement of cinema history but you could just focus on other stuff rather than technical because is a great use of this techniques but not an innovative one.
I've always wondered why rotating sets were needed for people that didn't need to appear being thrown to the side (as in the film examples shown). If they remained upright the entire time, it would have been easier to do nothing more than rotate the camera as they walked down a stationary corridor.
@@stephaniemitchell8509 But, the rotating corridor was actually TWO rotating corridors. Only one of the corridors rotated at a given time. th-cam.com/video/-RGGK2uyJOw/w-d-xo.html
The planets and spaceships in this movie looks pretty real. Just wanted this on MAX and I’m surprised how clear the movie is compared to even movies from the 90s.
the clarity of image is just a result of the film being rescanned in 2018 for the 50th anniversary; most film, if in good quality, is capable of being scanned to 4k
@@manofocean - I swear I read a few years ago someone on the TH-cam comment section mentioning that they filmed with high-quality film strips at the time of filming. I'm not sure how true that is, but I just watched this film in 4K for the first time and it still looks absolutely great! It would be great to see it on the big screen like the Imax theater besides my rudimentary 4K TV.
There was no CGI when 2001 was made back in the 1960s. That kind of technology simply didn't exist back then, so they made do with what they had and what was available to them and I have to say how impressed I am by how well to this day, well over 50 years later, the movie still holds up and looks better than some movies being made now! Now that in of itself is an achievement when nearly 60 years later, you can say that your film still holds up! 2001 really was ahead of it's time!
2001 is a beautiful movie but none of the techniques listed here were brand new. Rotating sets were built for: "Dancing on the Ceiling" (Fred Astair, 1951) and earlier for "The Boat" (Eddie Cline, Buster Keaton, 1921) and even earlier for "When the Clouds Roll By" (Victor Fleming, 1919). The Slit Scan was invented in 1843 and called the "Ellipsen dagherrotype" and used for cool psychedelic stuff in the the experimental film "Catalog" in 1961 by John and his James Whitney and their film "Lapis" (1966). 2001 didn't use what we call motion control. They used an animation stand, and motorized camera mounts which is not exactly "motion control". "King Kong" (1933) used miniature front projection along with every other thing they could think of. Not that 2001 isn't really cool and all...
The 2001 space station is so simplistic in concept I keep wondering why [other than obvious cost etc] it hasn't been used even on a small scale. It makes no sense to me of how many decades has past we only have an expensive toy [International Space Station] erector station in low orbit.
There are videos that show how the human body can't handle small rotating space stations because it will confuse the inner ear too much and make one ill. So you need a larger structure, at least 300 meters or so in diameter, to overcome that. Oddly that is exactly the diameter of Space Station V in 2001...
I feel exactly the same way. A lot of people have said exactly the same thing. I don't know if NASA has ever given an official answer as to why they haven't ever even tried to build a rotating space station like the one in 2001 Honestly, I don't understand why NASA or a foreign government has never tried to build a rotating space station that simulates artificial gravity. Given how much money the space program costs and how much money countries have spent on space exploration( when we still can't get things straightened out and properly in order right here on this planet), I'm genuinely surprised and puzzled why NASA or anyone else hasn't done it or even TRIED to do it.
@@JR-ju3kj The actual problem in reality is size, money to fund it and right now research and experiments up there rely on a lack of gravity. If say the spacecraft is small, the faster it has to rotate which can make the astronauts disoriented, so if you're going to generate gravity safely it's got to be done with a very large spacecraft that spins very slowly. The bigger the disk, the slower you can rotate it. Also, the disorienting thing will happen if your ship or station has any windows in it. If a spacecraft's rotating portion were too small, residents would feel a huge difference in the force imposed on their heads and what they felt on their feet. They'd end up dizzy and lightheaded because blood would be drawn down, away from the brain. Right now there's no spacecraft on the drawing board big enough to do this. It would have to be a very large, larger than a football field. A true viable ship at that scale, a rotating spacecraft becomes one heck of an expense. For now, short-term space travel doesn't really need artificial gravity. In fact, most of the research done on ISS relies on the lack of gravity. And on a long-term mission, say, to Mars would need a big fuel-hungry spacecraft.
Hey amateurs, Mistake at 0:13, second clip from left is from Star Wars. Rotating stage was used before 2001 and camera wasn't motion control, it was just dolly shots while most ships were just still photos, scan and pan. stop misinforming viewers.
It still is motion control just not the one star wars use. He didn't say 2001 was the first to used rotating stages he just said it was "Mainstreamed" by the movie. I really can say this video is bad is just not clear at all. Ok, 2 year ago person.
1:17 Desinformation The motion control, create in 1976 by John dykstra from ilm in star wars, on 2001, trumbull use the classic camera movement with front projection and miniature model
@@katush8810 Star Wars pioneered motion control camera technique, created by ILM for that, pioneering new tech exactly like 2001. But 2001 did not have motion control cameras, they used camera movement (or spacecraft movement).
Mate, April 1968 is NOT three months before Armstrong landed on the moon. It's 15 months. How could you not know the date of the greatest event in the entire history of mankind?
@@Brandonhayhew Christopher Nolan is a great director but Stanley Kubrick was and is in a class all by himself. I'm sure even Nolan himself would agree with that.
Like the director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin, said on the special features section for the 2001 Dvd, 2001 is the grandfather of pretty much every science fiction film that came after it( even whether or not the filmmakers know it, 2001 paved the way for them to be making Sci-Fi movies in space and to be taken seriously doing it). Stanley Kubrick was a lot of people's teacher and inspiration and I'm not even a filmmaker but I am an aspiring artist, author and comic book writer and 2001 was a big influence and inspiration for me, too!
The material used for reflecting the projected image (Scotchlite) back to the camera is insanely reflective. (micro beaded) But only at an exact angle. So precise placement of the camera is necessary. But once nailed, look out. I bought a piece of it in the 1980's to fool with. (shooting Super 8 ) The ratio of reflectivity is so high that the projected image does not register on the ape suits, Tapirs, jaguar, etc. But it was reflected by the rear of the jaguar's eyes. Scotchlite can be found now on strips on the jackets of highway workers, etc. They use it for responding to headlights, mostly. You've seen it. Imagine getting the giant scotchlite screen to be perfect for 2001.
The African front projections and all scenes where you see the background with or without anything in the foreground were all still photos, so not technically “footage”.
As incredible as the effects were for the time, they do not reflect the reality of living in space. No one uses velcro shoes to walk up a wall. They just float from point to point (think Apollo 13). And even for long term space flight, it appears the use of centrifuges to simulate gravity is out. The structural and mechanical challenges are too great plus, depending on how large the centrifuge radius is, the inhabitants would experience disorientation when changing direction while walking on the floor. None of this takes anything away from 2001. The film was made with the knowledge they had at the time, and a need to not disorient the audience.
There was no motion control in 2001 and no use of computers for controlling the cameras. Also the you have rear projection and front projection mixed up. 2001 used rear projection not front projection. Poorly researched video
Doh!! 2001 used Front Projection. Also, they used a non-computerized form of motion control for shooting the Discovery ship. They moved the camera or ship on a slowing turning worm-gear, that was accurately repeatable enough for their purposes.
To oczywiste że to ONI wybrali ,czas ,miejsce i pewne okoliczności.W przeciwieństwie do ludzi nie musieli zabijać innych ludzi, w tym dzieci aby ta historia się " wypełniła " Ludzie mogli wybrać teoretycznie lepiej ,skrócić twoje cierpienia i zająć się ratowaniem siebie .Wybierają cały czas gorzej gdyż taka jest inatura ich wolnej woli ..Wszystko co zrobili ONI ,zrobili dla Waszego (wszystkich ludzi dobra ,kierowani troską o Was .Wiedzą lepiej od was czego potrzebujecie ( kiedyś to wiedzieliście ) ONI przekazują "Mengele " z hegemonii ,oprócz rozkazów córkojebcy macie też wolną wolę.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I think actual, physical effects are far more impressive and fun to watch then CGI. CGI is nice and can do a lot, but in the end you know it is computer generated and thus not as impressive. That jogging scene in 2001 is still amazing to this day.
To me, they both look best when used together. As an example, Watch Jurassic Park.
I totally agree with you (weird name).
@@tilesetter1953 lmao
I think computer graphics are so advanced now that you can watch a movie and suspend belief without getting caught up in CGI.
When watching the original Star wars movie, the lighting passes were often misaligned and moving about. That is pretty distracting too (though I like it for nostalgia).
Premiere of 2001: April 1968. Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon: July 1969.
These are not VFX. Visual effects are done in post-production. These are optical and Special Effects (SFX).
Nobody cares
@@FirstnameLastname-zh9hd i do
@@FirstnameLastname-zh9hd I do
@@vishnur9852 I stand corrected
Ah, theres that person in the youtube comments with the need to expell their inner sadnes
Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969 not 1968
landed on set you mean, lol :-P i am just razzing you but i am slightly serious
@@hispace7657 I don't think anyone should be called retarded for speculation.
@@melsoro7311 I speculate that if I jump from the tallest building in the world I will fly...Am I not a retarded???
@@juantsu2000 no just delusional.
@@melsoro7311 The same can be said for people that think the moon landing was a hoax.
The film raised the bar for sci-fi special effects by a factor of a million, and turned the Sci-Fi genre from cheesy, cheap kid's garbage to sophisticated and respected overnight. It inspired a generation of filmmakers to the possibilities of film.
Fantastic Voyage was a serious, high concept, high-production values project too.
@@johnedwards1321 Well, yes. But the special effects were very much along the lines of the current b-movie science fiction (no not impressive at all). It looks like a b-sci fi film with a budget. 2001 looks like what the future might actually look like, and it still holds up. Fantastic Voyage certainly didn't have any real impact on budding filmmakers at all, and had no impact on how science fiction films were seen (which is unfortunate, since I'm a big Isaac Asimov fan).
2001 changed the sci-fi film from men in gorilla costumes and fishbowls on their heads capturing fainting women to a serious film genre. It inspired George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, etc. It really did change filmmaking. Fantastic Voyage...didn't.
@@Ocrilat I agreed completly. I just think that FV is often overlooked. It's special effects don't hold up, clearly, but it was a bond concept and the Proteus was a very cool ship ( apparent from the paper maps instead of fancy computer read-outs). In fact, I think one of the genuinely brilliant moves in 2001 was the absence of knobs and dials, a merely relied on screens with colorful and stark letters and numbers as control mechanisms which keep it fully up to date no matter what the most recent iterations of iPad's look like. The clean no-bullshit interiors truly sell the whole thing. Anyway, thanks. This was fun. Cheers, John
Very well said! 2001: A Space Odyssey is a groundbreaking and revolutionary film in so many different ways and I agree with everything that you said! Yes, it raised the bar for sci-fi special effects, yes, it changed the Sci-Fi genre and made people take it seriously as a respected and sophisticated artform and yes, it inspired a generation of filmmakers! I would also say the movie also inspired future scientists, inventors, engineers, astronauts, technicians, doctors, authors, artists, and people in a variety of different career fields.
I'm an aspiring author( and comic book writer and illustrator) and 2001 has been a big influence for the kinds of books and comic books that I want to write!
The glowing leopard eyes were an unexpected consequence of front projection, but Kubrick liked them so they stayed in the movie
That rotating set for 2001 is still one of the best.
All this techniques were (at least) a decade old when Kubrik made 2001.
Royal Weddings in 1951 used a rotative set
Oskar Fischinger invented the technique used in Vertigo and 2001
Projection techniques using mirrors were common in the 40s and 50s
What i mean is that it's ok to try to make people aware of 2001 as an spectacular achievement of cinema history but you could just focus on other stuff rather than technical because is a great use of this techniques but not an innovative one.
yep...Royal Wedding being a perfect example.
I've always wondered why rotating sets were needed for people that didn't need to appear being thrown to the side (as in the film examples shown). If they remained upright the entire time, it would have been easier to do nothing more than rotate the camera as they walked down a stationary corridor.
Other movies may have used these techniques before, but 2001 reinvented those techniques in more ways than any other film.
@@stephaniemitchell8509 But, the rotating corridor was actually TWO rotating corridors. Only one of the corridors rotated at a given time.
th-cam.com/video/-RGGK2uyJOw/w-d-xo.html
Nolan really paying homage to Kubrick!
L
0:36, No that was a year and 3 months before the moon landing. How wasn't this error picked up during editing?
Because it was edited by idiots
Poor editing or poor knowledge, 🤫
The planets and spaceships in this movie looks pretty real. Just wanted this on MAX and I’m surprised how clear the movie is compared to even movies from the 90s.
the clarity of image is just a result of the film being rescanned in 2018 for the 50th anniversary; most film, if in good quality, is capable of being scanned to 4k
@@manofocean - I swear I read a few years ago someone on the TH-cam comment section mentioning that they filmed with high-quality film strips at the time of filming. I'm not sure how true that is, but I just watched this film in 4K for the first time and it still looks absolutely great! It would be great to see it on the big screen like the Imax theater besides my rudimentary 4K TV.
We still hadn't pioneered 100% real looking CGI
There’s some thats almost seem less
War for the Planet of the Apes, CGI Apes, Horses, Mountains, Avalanche, some environments, etc. looked actually real...
There was no CGI when 2001 was made back in the 1960s. That kind of technology simply didn't exist back then, so they made do with what they had and what was available to them and I have to say how impressed I am by how well to this day, well over 50 years later, the movie still holds up and looks better than some movies being made now! Now that in of itself is an achievement when nearly 60 years later, you can say that your film still holds up! 2001 really was ahead of it's time!
@@JR-ju3kjthere was CGI but it was rudimentary by today's standards
@@JR-ju3kj maybe there was cgi back then but the big companies didn't want to tell us
thani you for this, your work is much appreciated.
The rotating set was used before. Fred Astaire did a dance on the ceiling in “Royal Wedding” using a similar technique.
2001 is a beautiful movie but none of the techniques listed here were brand new.
Rotating sets were built for:
"Dancing on the Ceiling" (Fred Astair, 1951) and earlier for "The Boat" (Eddie Cline, Buster Keaton, 1921) and even earlier for "When the Clouds Roll By" (Victor Fleming, 1919).
The Slit Scan was invented in 1843 and called the "Ellipsen dagherrotype" and used for cool psychedelic stuff in the the experimental film "Catalog" in 1961 by John and his James Whitney and their film "Lapis" (1966).
2001 didn't use what we call motion control. They used an animation stand, and motorized camera mounts which is not exactly "motion control".
"King Kong" (1933) used miniature front projection along with every other thing they could think of.
Not that 2001 isn't really cool and all...
0:11 that’s from Star Wars
are you kiding me?? 1:43 this is an goddamn tie-x1 from star wars
Bro that is hilarious!
The movie came out in 68, Neil Armstrong step foot on the moon in 1969
Best movie of all time
The 2001 space station is so simplistic in concept I keep wondering why [other than obvious cost etc] it hasn't been used even on a small scale. It makes no sense to me of how many decades has past we only have an expensive toy [International Space Station] erector station in low orbit.
There are videos that show how the human body can't handle small rotating space stations because it will confuse the inner ear too much and make one ill. So you need a larger structure, at least 300 meters or so in diameter, to overcome that. Oddly that is exactly the diameter of Space Station V in 2001...
I feel exactly the same way. A lot of people have said exactly the same thing. I don't know if NASA has ever given an official answer as to why they haven't ever even tried to build a rotating space station like the one in 2001 Honestly, I don't understand why NASA or a foreign government has never tried to build a rotating space station that simulates artificial gravity. Given how much money the space program costs and how much money countries have spent on space exploration( when we still can't get things straightened out and properly in order right here on this planet), I'm genuinely surprised and puzzled why NASA or anyone else hasn't done it or even TRIED to do it.
@@JR-ju3kj
The actual problem in reality is size, money to fund it and right now research and experiments up there rely on a lack of gravity.
If say the spacecraft is small, the faster it has to rotate which can make the astronauts disoriented, so if you're going to generate gravity safely it's got to be done with a very large spacecraft that spins very slowly.
The bigger the disk, the slower you can rotate it.
Also, the disorienting thing will happen if your ship or station has any windows in it.
If a spacecraft's rotating portion were too small, residents would feel a huge difference in the force imposed on their heads and what they felt on their feet.
They'd end up dizzy and lightheaded because blood would be drawn down, away from the brain.
Right now there's no spacecraft on the drawing board big enough to do this. It would have to be a very large, larger than a football field.
A true viable ship at that scale, a rotating spacecraft becomes one heck of an expense.
For now, short-term space travel doesn't really need artificial gravity. In fact, most of the research done on ISS relies on the lack of gravity.
And on a long-term mission, say, to Mars would need a big fuel-hungry spacecraft.
Hey amateurs, Mistake at 0:13, second clip from left is from Star Wars. Rotating stage was used before 2001 and camera wasn't motion control, it was just dolly shots while most ships were just still photos, scan and pan. stop misinforming viewers.
It still is motion control just not the one star wars use. He didn't say 2001 was the first to used rotating stages he just said it was "Mainstreamed" by the movie. I really can say this video is bad is just not clear at all. Ok, 2 year ago person.
Three months before Neil Armstrong landed on the moon (with Buzz Aldrin, way to forget him)? Try a year and three months.
1:17 Desinformation The motion control, create in 1976 by John dykstra from ilm in star wars, on 2001, trumbull use the classic camera movement with front projection and miniature model
Star wars used it on large scale, motion control wasn't created in 1976. A simple google search wound of found that.
@@katush8810 Star Wars pioneered motion control camera technique, created by ILM for that, pioneering new tech exactly like 2001. But 2001 did not have motion control cameras, they used camera movement (or spacecraft movement).
These are not visual effects. Visual effects are done in post production. These are special effects, as they are all done practically on set
Its a great great great movie that stood the test of time💙❤️
Mate, April 1968 is NOT three months before Armstrong landed on the moon. It's 15 months. How could you not know the date of the greatest event in the entire history of mankind?
Gene Kelly danced on the ceiling and walls of a set in 1951 "Royal Wedding".
1:05 Stanley Kubrick was Christopher Nolan’s teacher I suppose.
Christopher Nolan is a talentless hack.
Nolan tries his best but never will be like Kubrick a legend
@@applescruff1969 Still a legend when compared to many CGI and actor's boot licking brats today
@@Brandonhayhew Christopher Nolan is a great director but Stanley Kubrick was and is in a class all by himself. I'm sure even Nolan himself would agree with that.
Like the director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin, said on the special features section for the 2001 Dvd, 2001 is the grandfather of pretty much every science fiction film that came after it( even whether or not the filmmakers know it, 2001 paved the way for them to be making Sci-Fi movies in space and to be taken seriously doing it). Stanley Kubrick was a lot of people's teacher and inspiration and I'm not even a filmmaker but I am an aspiring artist, author and comic book writer and 2001 was a big influence and inspiration for me, too!
I don't understand how in front projection shots, the background image doesn't project onto the actors themselves.
The material used for reflecting the projected image (Scotchlite) back to the camera is insanely reflective. (micro beaded) But only at an exact angle. So precise placement of the camera is necessary. But once nailed, look out. I bought a piece of it in the 1980's to fool with. (shooting Super 8 ) The ratio of reflectivity is so high that the projected image does not register on the ape suits, Tapirs, jaguar, etc. But it was reflected by the rear of the jaguar's eyes. Scotchlite can be found now on strips on the jackets of highway workers, etc. They use it for responding to headlights, mostly. You've seen it. Imagine getting the giant scotchlite screen to be perfect for 2001.
Epic movie. I got it right away. And in 2024, how close are we to an AI HAL-9000 that will think humans are not trustworthy!
The African front projections and all scenes where you see the background with or without anything in the foreground were all still photos, so not technically “footage”.
How are the computer screens of such high resolution?
They were projected, video projection
@@qed100 still quite amazing how sharp they were for its time. Was this technique used in any other film from that era?
@@semirecumbentoneYT It was projected 16mm film, not video.
Great movie.
It's "Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin" and you totally got the date wrong 😓
Music video... should have used Dancing on the ceiling !!!
None of this explains Nazi's on the moon.
As incredible as the effects were for the time, they do not reflect the reality of living in space. No one uses velcro shoes to walk up a wall. They just float from point to point (think Apollo 13). And even for long term space flight, it appears the use of centrifuges to simulate gravity is out. The structural and mechanical challenges are too great plus, depending on how large the centrifuge radius is, the inhabitants would experience disorientation when changing direction while walking on the floor.
None of this takes anything away from 2001. The film was made with the knowledge they had at the time, and a need to not disorient the audience.
So cool
I liked your video and subscribed so if you can subscribe to me i would llike your video and get more peaple to subscribe to you
You could have explained more! indepth the actual way kubrick centrifugal walking etc..ocurred. than just generalised .
That’s what I’m trying to figure out!
There was no motion control in 2001 and no use of computers for controlling the cameras. Also the you have rear projection and front projection mixed up. 2001 used rear projection not front projection. Poorly researched video
Doh!! 2001 used Front Projection. Also, they used a non-computerized form of motion control for shooting the Discovery ship. They moved the camera or ship on a slowing turning worm-gear, that was accurately repeatable enough for their purposes.
To oczywiste że to ONI wybrali ,czas ,miejsce i pewne okoliczności.W przeciwieństwie do ludzi nie musieli zabijać innych ludzi, w tym dzieci aby ta historia się " wypełniła " Ludzie mogli wybrać teoretycznie lepiej ,skrócić twoje cierpienia i zająć się ratowaniem siebie .Wybierają cały czas gorzej gdyż taka jest inatura ich wolnej woli ..Wszystko co zrobili ONI ,zrobili dla Waszego (wszystkich ludzi dobra ,kierowani troską o Was .Wiedzą lepiej od was czego potrzebujecie ( kiedyś to wiedzieliście ) ONI przekazują "Mengele " z hegemonii ,oprócz rozkazów córkojebcy macie też wolną wolę.
Niezle ziomuś
i heard this music in a 1940 movie
Simple Complicated blue Danube was made in the 18th century
@@ricimercury9490 @ by whom? Strauss?
Simple Complicated yes Johann Strauss
@@ricimercury9490 is this Bob Dylan in your
profile pic?
Moon landing was July 20, 1969. Editing is dead.
H.A.L Advance each letter by one and you get I.B.M
Maybe he filmed the moon landing?
Don’t be ridiculous.
I think so 😆
500th like
This video is factually incorrect.
There are too many errors in this video, please take it down or put a warning on the video beforehand.
Such a phenomenal effect ruined by an actor looking absolutely ridiculous running throwing "punches" or whatever those movements were supposed to be