Hmm, more comments on question category than answers. Sure, I can see it in skeptics as a means of having others find it and learn from it, but some key technical answers will come more from video production folk.
Anyway, I'm more interested in the answers. Kubrick's 2001 came out in 1968, and was considered hyper-realistic in its day. Surely that fueled some of the conspiracy theorists. But damning technical points like Tetsujin's above are lost on anyone who WANTS a fake to have been possible.
It's tempting to believe the physics of the bound-time and dust fall rate (to both match Moon gravity) would have been very hard to get right:
In contrast, what Kurbick did in 2001 was large and pretty, and that sort of thing has a disproportional emotional sway on our sense of what's real.
If you really want the debunk, see Snopes article on it here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/. The most compelling part is an outtake from a purported admission by "Kubrick" (an actor portraying him), where the director of the "interview" coaches him, saying:
“You don’t say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I’m giving you directions. You don’t have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You’re not reporting it. You’re repeating it … We’re doing exposition here. That’s how we’re going to sneak it in.”