2001: A Space Odyssey is the reason they say it could be faked.
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
184 points (99.5% liked)
90s Memes
481 readers
17 users here now
The Memiverse:
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!philosophymemes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Yes, the conspiracy theory actually involves Kubrick himself
It's true! However, Kubrick was such a perfectionist that he insisted on shooting it on location.
Anybody who says that has either never seen 2001 or never seen any moon landing footage.
I've seen both, and 2001 is beautiful and has very impressive practical effects, looks way better than the moon landing.
If you are only comparing it to broadcast footage of Apollo 11 maybe. But there are dozens of hours of crystal clear film from the surface of the moon. Watching footage from the lunar rover blows 2001 out of the water.
What if only the TV broadcast was pre-recorded.
AI was invented by John Al in 1993 to Al upscale the moon landing footage when they "digitized" it.
..and it's not realistic. Good luck portraying a moon landing realistically at that time
Jfc jumpscare warning?
I thought there was a real gorilla in my phone
Lol the jfc reminded me of The Onion's moon landing audio. "Jesus fucking Christ in a chicken basket, the fucking moon" https://youtu.be/ntbInwqsqAM?t=68
Beast Wars and ReBoot looked photorealistic to my 14-year-old eyes.
Reboot never looked photorealistic to me but worked better that way. They were living in a computer after all.
Game over. User wins.
God, chills. Just like end of portal 2.
The fuzzy CRT picture quality really helped there.
Great show
FF7 when it came out. Then FF8. Then FFX.
Technology be crazy, y'all.
I heard an interview with a filmmaker who went over what TV / film technology was capable of in the 1960s.
In the 1940s rockets existed, the V2 rockets Germany launched at Britain weren't quite orbital rockets or moon rockets, but the basics were there.
On the other hand, by the1960s, TV technology was pretty primitive. The only "storage" they had for TV signals was a device that could store maybe 30 seconds of video footage. That was used for instant replays in sports. Some shows were shot on film and then transferred to TV, but it was always obvious when it was done that way because film has limitations. There's dust, hairs, scratches, grain, etc. that get on the film and get projected on the TV. You also have to change rolls of film pretty often. But, with the lunar landing they had only one camera, so it was one continuous shot for much longer than you could do with the film technology of the time.
Sure, this is NASA, so maybe instead of figuring out the technology necessary to go to space, the geniuses there were instead focused exclusively on how to advance video and film technology to decades beyond what was known in the 1960s just so they could fake a moon landing. And, not only did the moon landing not leak, none of this A/V technology leaked either. Given that rockets and guidance systems already existed in the 1940s, isn't it more likely that they just advanced that stuff by a couple of decades and used it to land people on the moon?
this is how I think about all the “AI experts” freaking out about AGI in like 2022. Like, over Chat GPT2? experts?
Upvote for Beast Wars!
The infamous 1996 moon landings. By then people were so bored with them that nobody even noticed.
The old Battletech cartoon's CGI was the coolest thing ever to my tiny eight year old brain.
It was obviously special effects actually.