I bet the shills who were trying to debunk this video on various forums were paid disinfo agents.

Undoubtedly. The content is about what I'd expect: details about the production itself with a mild grasp of the reasoning as to why they haven't actually been to the moon without being "fringe". Completely believable and reasonable.

So here's the snopes "debunk".  With snopes, the opposite is almost always true.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/

So when the video was first posted, it was said that the interview took place in May, 1999 (Kubrick died in March 1999).  But even snopes admits that this may just have been a mis-statement or "typo".

Then they argue that this guy in the video looks and sounds nothing like the real Kubrick.  That's completely untrue from what I saw of that other footage of Kubrick.

They then say that a "spokesman for Kubrick's widow" said the video never happened and that Kubrick didn't know the interviewer.  Sure.  How do we knew that SHE knew of the interview or that this "spokesman" is telling the truth.  And ... there may be a good reason she'd WANT to deny it.

Probably the closest thing to a debunk would be some claim that the interviewer was calling Kubrick "Tom" in a since-deleted cllip, so that this guy Tom was just playing the part of Kubrick.  I find this implausible.  If this was a deliberate hoax, then surely the perpetrator would have edited that piece out.  Where is this clip?  Surely, someone must have a copy and snopes would have linked to it.  And, then, let's say there is mention of some "Tom".  How do we know that there wasn't someone else there named Tom and that he was speaking to a Kubrick impersonator?

This should be subjected to an analysis by the same people who did the Sister Lucy Truth analysis.

I'm rewatching it trying to image they're acting, and I just can't see it.  There's no hint of that on Kubrick's face.  It look totally spontaneous.  Then the interviewer is kindof losing it, stuttering, talking all over Kubrick because he's clearly frazzled.  That's not how a fake interview would be scripted out.  Or else, this is a better acting job by both of them than anything Kubrick ever produced.

I agree.  The interviewer is clearly frazzled, taken aback, has a very difficult time figuring out what to even ask. 

Having said that, why is the lighting/video SOOOO bad?  [That was what I meant by the picture being awful upthread, not the picture DL posted]. I don't like that we can't see half of Kubrick's face.

As far as the lighting, my feeling about that is that this interview was done in quasi-secret, and so perhaps at Kubrick's home or the interviewer's home, and so they would have avoided wanting to have a large or even professional camera crew.  Kubrick wanted it to be hush-hush, and it may even have been a spur of the moment thing.  If at his home, perhaps he didn't want nosey neighbors seeing someone come in with a camera (and so told him to bring a small one he could tuck away in a coat), and didn't want his wife to know he was giving it either.  It's hard to say, but it would be nice to get a little back-story from the interviewer.  Reportedly he's tight-lipped about the entire thing and won't talk about it (this was released in 2015 if I recall).  Perhaps he's under pressure from the powers that be.

I tried to watch it thinking if I wanted to stage something like that, script it, that it just seems so spontaneous, and Kubrick really seemed to be speaking off the cuff.  He never gives away the game, by cracking a smile.  Interviewer does seem legitimately taken aback by the answer, to the point of getting so excited that he's talking all over and cutting off Kubrick.  That's certainly not how I would script a fake interview.  But maybe these guys are REALLY good.  And the expression on Kubrick's face did look as if he wanted to get something off his chest, and I sensed there was still a mixed motived, where part of it was that he wanted to get credit for this great achievement, and part of it where he felt a bit bad about the fraud.  He says that when he was asked to do it, he didn't even think about the fraud part, but just about it as another "movie" project that he was flattered to have been asked to do ... never considered it from an ethical standpoint.

I'm not following how the topic of this interview was FE [Flat Earth?]?

It wasn't.  Sometimes people blend things like NASA faking the moon landings with other tangential questions, such as geocentrism or FE.  I often blend the latter two myself and need to keep reminding myself that they're separate considerations ... even if they are related.

The low quality of the clip points to some decent age, so who back then would benefit from faking it? No "conspiracy" to deny the moon landings even existed at the time.      

As far as the lighting, my feeling about that is that this interview was done in quasi-secret, and so perhaps at Kubrick's home or the interviewer's home, and so they would have avoided wanting to have a large or even professional camera crew.  Kubrick wanted it to be hush-hush, and it may even have been a spur of the moment thing.  If at his home, perhaps he didn't want nosey neighbors seeing someone come in with a camera (and so told him to bring a small one he could tuck away in a coat), and didn't want his wife to know he was giving it either.  It's hard to say, but it would be nice to get a little back-story from the interviewer.  Reportedly he's tight-lipped about the entire thing and won't talk about it (this was released in 2015 if I recall).  Perhaps he's under pressure from the powers that be.

I tried to watch it thinking if I wanted to stage something like that, script it, that it just seems so spontaneous, and Kubrick really seemed to be speaking off the cuff.  He never gives away the game, by cracking a smile.  Interviewer does seem legitimately taken aback by the answer, to the point of getting so excited that he's talking all over and cutting off Kubrick.  That's certainly not how I would script a fake interview.  But maybe these guys are REALLY good.  And the expression on Kubrick's face did look as if he wanted to get something off his chest, and I sensed there was still a mixed motived, where part of it was that he wanted to get credit for this great achievement, and part of it where he felt a bit bad about the fraud.  He says that when he was asked to do it, he didn't even think about the fraud part, but just about it as another "movie" project that he was flattered to have been asked to do ... never considered it from an ethical standpoint.

I think the bolded part makes it seem even more genuine.    

I just can't help but think they are on drugs or something. They both sound off. It also sounds like the camera guy is trying to help him come up with a story, kind of like what that CNN Cuomo guy would do with, I think it was Trump's lawyer, before going on air. I'm not saying the landing is true or fake, but that video is very strange.

I didn't get that impression at all.  Interviewer was talking all over him after he got excited about the moon mission, and to be quite frank his line of questioning was really lame and almost incoherent.  It sounded like he had intended to ask him about his various movies (blurted that our at one point), but then he was unprepared to ask about the NASA stuff, and he was tripping up, stuttering, and almost incoherent.  If anything, it look like KUBRICK had to reel him in and tell him what he wanted to talk about.  If I had set out to script a fake interview, it would not have been anything like what we saw.  As for Kubrick's "sound", the way he spoke was very similar to some other video in that reel of "all known video of Kubrick".

But, of course, all this is subjective.  As I said, would be great if some experts like those who chimed in on Sister Lucy could report their findings about whether the gentleman in this interview is really Kubrick.  They might even be able to analyze the video to determine whether it's consistent with 1999 technology vs. 2015 (when it was finally released).  So, for instance, if they find that, oh, this was made with a pixel ratio that wasn't available until the iPhone 6 was released several years later (after 1999).