luckyluke 2 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Gah just posted this and it disappeared: Whilst not about the events on the moon/in Hollywood themselves, The Dish is a cracking film about the moon landing, about the radio telescope and its crew in Australia that received the famous images and relayed them to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 and lets face it, world war two with all the fighting and guns and bombs and the clear us v them good v evil dynamic was a lot more exciting than the moon landing which was essentially science that went perfectly well why arent you getting this? Why am I not getting why Mankinds greatest ever achievement has never been turned into a film? Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4721 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 it clearly wouldn't make a good film though, the scale of the achievement is meaningless in that sense, any sense of trepidation, excitement, thrill or intrigue, anything that makes for compelling viewing is non-existent in the story since everyone knows how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Much more of a documentary subject......of which there are dozens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 it clearly wouldn't make a good film though, the scale of the achievement is meaningless in that sense, any sense of trepidation, excitement, thrill or intrigue, anything that makes for compelling viewing is non-existent in the story since everyone knows how it goes. We'll have to agree to disagree. There are lots of factual films that are made that even though the outcome is known, the journey can be very exciting. Just look at Apollo 13. Im sure there was enough excitement here to knock together a two hour film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ "One of the more head-scratching examples of NASA’s involvement in a film is the 1978 movie Capricorn One. Capricorn One is a classic post-Watergate conspiracy thriller. The plot is simple: NASA fakes a Mars landing. The three astronauts who were supposed to go on the mission are instead held captive. They escape, and are pursued across the desert and killed one by one before a crusading reporter (à la Bob Woodward) shows up to rescue the last survivor. Capricorn One is not a great film, but as a conspiracy thriller it’s pretty good. The story is tight, the suspense builds well, and the film reaches its climax with a great aerial chase sequence involving a biplane and a couple of Army helicopters over the Mojave Desert—not far from where SpaceShipTwo is currently taking to the air. In the film, NASA is clearly evil. After all, the NASA administrator is behind the conspiracy, and even approves the astronauts’ murders. During a sequence in the middle of the film the astronauts are shown with a lunar module (standing in as a Mars lander) and there’s also an Apollo command module visible in some shots. The lunar module featured prominently in the film’s trailer. For years, articles about the film questioned whether or not NASA provided any equipment for a movie that clearly painted the agency in a bad light. NASA officials reportedly denied that they had provided any assistance. But an amusing article by film historian Frederick C. Szebin, “The Making of Capricorn One,” explains what happened, and makes clear that the film did indeed use some leftover Apollo equipment loaned by NASA. The article is printed in the current issue of Filmfax magazine, but has apparently been available online for a decade at the website mania.com (in a somewhat difficult to read format). Edited July 31, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 We'll have to agree to disagree. There are lots of factual films that are made that even though the outcome is known, the journey can be very exciting. Just look at Apollo 13. Im sure there was enough excitement here to knock together a two hour film. It's not that the acheivement isn't massively impressive. You mention Apollo13, the reason that film was made is because things went wrong. It's a story with drama, human interest, peril and success. The Moon Landing doesn't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's not that the acheivement isn't massively impressive. You mention Apollo13, the reason that film was made is because things went wrong. It's a story with drama, human interest, peril and success. The Moon Landing doesn't have that. Give over Fish. Read those last two sentences and give yourself a slap. Arguing for arguings sake tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Space Shuttle was a complete failure. "Did you know that two significant events in spaceflight took place in 1969? The first was the first manned landing on the moon, on July 20, 1969. The second is a little less known. Buoyed by the success of the space program, President Nixon made the fateful decision to launch the Space Shuttle program in that same year. The cost for the project was estimated to be about five billion dollars to deliver stuff to orbit at $118 per pound. The “space shuttle” was intended to fly much like a plane – cheap and easily serviced, with flights every few weeks and massive cargo capacity. When the Shuttle was finally completed in 1981, the reality was a bit different. First, the shuttle was 20% too heavy, so it couldn’t actually deliver the military payloads it was designed to fly. That left the civilian market. Unfortunately, the actual cost was $27,000 per pound delivered to orbit. Finally, the overhaul after each flight actually took many months and cost $1.5 billion, making regular “shuttle” service impractical. Compounding the cost was the fact that the shuttle tends to explode with cargo and crew every decade or so, and thus costs years of idleness and a dozen billion or so in redesign costs. In other words, the program was a total failure before the shuttle ever got off the ground. If a car maker tried to sell a car that cost 228 times what was promised, could fit only half the advertised passengers, and had to be refurbished after every drive, they might not do so well in the market, especially when a much cheaper alternative was available. The Soviet Soyuz launcher designed in 1965 costs under a tenth of the Shuttle and has now in fact replaced it. When the government was faced with the same problem, it decided to “invent” a market for the shuttle instead. Thus came about thousands of useless space experiments and a useless $160 billion space station, which is scheduled to be demolished in 2016. In other cases, satellites which used to be launched by cheap expendable rockets were redirected to the shuttle, actually delaying the launch and ballooning the costs." Edited July 31, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The most dramatic bit of the moon landings is the footage that has been already seen by most people and any attempt to reconstruct this would be a poor substitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Give over Fish. Read those last two sentences and give yourself a slap. Arguing for arguings sake tbf. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. Basically because everything went fine there isn't the drama. If they had to make last minute ad hoc alterations using ingenuity and hope, then it'd be more exciting. But basically everything went to plan. It's not thrilling any more. It was at the time. Just not now. Alos, if NASA had faked their biggest achievement, why haven't they had another one? Why not fake landing on Mars? Why not fake a moonbase? Why stop? ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Maybe I'm not explaining it well. Basically because everything went fine there isn't the drama. If they had to make last minute ad hoc alterations using ingenuity and hope, then it'd be more exciting. But basically everything went to plan. It's not thrilling any more. It was at the time. Just not now. Alos, if NASA had faked their biggest achievement, why haven't they had another one? Why not fake landing on Mars? Why not fake a moonbase? Why stop? ludicrous. It's a little harder these days bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 My word that is shoddily written. 'explodes every decade or so' - a phrase which suggests there were more incidents than the one in 1986 and one in 2003. Then cites a list of running problems and concluding it was a failure 'before it got off the ground". Who wrote that Parky, Wolfy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 My word that is shoddily written. 'explodes every decade or so' - a phrase which suggests there were more incidents than the one in 1986 and one in 2003. Then cites a list of running problems and concluding it was a failure 'before it got off the ground". Who wrote that Parky, Wolfy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Russia were offering heavy lift at 30% the cost and would have wiped out the American space industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's a little harder these days bro. So it was easier to fake the moon landings then and still have them stand up to modern scrutiny now, rather than fake them now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So it was easier to fake the moon landings then and still have them stand up to modern scrutiny now, rather than fake them now? YOu realise what you're saying right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It is unusual that no film has been made of it and whilst there may be good reasons, those aren't being expressed in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42129 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Never happened. Anyone with an ounce of sense know the moon is made of cheese. It's in the Sun for a large portion of it orbit, so we're talking about landing men and buggies on melted gruyere up to 30m deep. WAKE UP PEOPLE! WAKE UP! Cheese is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Think of all the so called missions to the moon. Apparently they sent up Apollo11, 12, 14, 15, 16,and 17 and they all allegedly landed on the moon. Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 allegedly made so called successful landings and returned to Earth with no defects or casualties. People were probably now bored with Apollo because they were probably now focusing on Vietnam, which to them is far more important as most will have had sons or cousins or some family member involved. What's the best way to take their minds off it and get Apollo back on track? Create a 'Houston, we have a problem' scenario where Apollo 13 are in peril and the chances are, the Astronot's might not survive. Then create the hero scenario where they mange to rig up a quick fix with cardboard and frigging duct tape...a classic Blue Peter scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Alan Bean Apollo Astronot was asked by Bart Sibrel if he had any problem with the Van Allen radiation belts and Bean replied, "Oh, I don;t think we went far enough out to encounter the belts, maybe we did" hahahaha. N.A.S.A was supposedly worried about the effects from these belts (if we are to believe the tosh) yet Bean must have had his 1970's Ghetto blaster scaffolding aided head phones on when he was told about this. When Bart Sibrel reminded Bean that the radiation belts were 1000 miles above Earth's atmosphere and stretching up to 25,000 miles out, Bean said, " oh, well we went right through them" He must have got mixed up thinking the moon was only 240 miles away eh, instead of supposedly 240,000 miles away. Edited July 31, 2012 by wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 There still hasn't been a convincing explanation as to why they'd fake them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It is unusual that no film has been made of it and whilst there may be good reasons, those aren't being expressed in this thread. Ooooooh get her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now