ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: AtomicDog on January 28, 2013, 02:00:57 PM
-
Once again, I must ask, why has no movie set designer, special effects artist or propmaster has ever said this about the Project Apollo photographic or video record:
-
Beacause we know better than to trust some Johnny-come-lately engineer wannabe who doesnt even know there were 6 lunar surface missions.
-
I think there's some fun to be had with this. It does amuse me that people trot out the 'special effects' argument, suggesting that movie technology could have been used to fake it.
As a big fan of that era's sci-fi classics, I know purely from a spectator's point of view that it's a laughable suggestion with both TV and film getting lots of stuff either wrong or just plain silly looking. Don't get me started on the US news network simulations used to compensate for the lack of TV coverage.
Even films made some time after Apollo were very poor by modern standards. Superman and James Bond's lunar sequences are laughably bad.
Do people have any favourite examples?
-
I think there's some fun to be had with this. It does amuse me that people trot out the 'special effects' argument, suggesting that movie technology could have been used to fake it.
As a big fan of that era's sci-fi classics, I know purely from a spectator's point of view that it's a laughable suggestion with both TV and film getting lots of stuff either wrong or just plain silly looking. Don't get me started on the US news network simulations used to compensate for the lack of TV coverage.
Even films made some time after Apollo were very poor by modern standards. Superman and James Bond's lunar sequences are laughably bad.
Do people have any favourite examples?
Space 1999
Six to eight years after Apollo 11, with significant advances in special effects, access to hours and hours of lunar footage, and thousands of high quality still photos, they STILL couldn't get most of the important stuff right; the lunar surface and mountains, the behaviour of dust in a vacuum under 1/6th G and the appearance of astronauts working under low gravity; and in a TV series that was set on the moon!!!
IMO, this shows that it was simply not possible to fake the lunar landing and surface walks in a studio in the 1960s and 70s.
EDIT: the special effect supervisor on this was Brian Johnson. His resume included 2001: A Space Odyssey (assistant, uncredited), Alien (SFX supervisor) and what I consider to be the best of the six Star Wars movies. The Empire Strikes Back (SFX supervisor)
-
I've said for some time now that the fakest part of Apollo 13 is the daydream where he's actually on the Moon. Judicious use of the Vomit Comet got the stuff in the craft looking pretty much right, at least to someone who isn't an expert. However, the lunar stuff is just wrong.
-
Interesting fact alert: Space 1999 made use of Apollo photographs for some of its backdrops:
http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/cguide/uc17planetnasa.html (http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/cguide/uc17planetnasa.html)
I did enjoy that programme as a kid though!
One of my favourites is from a bit before Apollo, Destination Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(film))) from 1950, which won an Oscar for best special effects. There are many errors to be found in their depiction, although to be fair their explanation at the start as to how to get there is pretty good.
The film was actually cited by a HB elsewhere on the web (I forget the context but it was ludicrous and along the lines of 'this is how it should have looked in the photos etc etc)), but no-one spotted the obvious error in this view:
(http://drnorth.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/vlcsnap-2009-11-16-23h02m53s18.png)
Hint: what are the cracks?
-
Hint: what are the cracks?
Cracks formed when molten magma cooled? ;) ;) ;D
(http://images.inmagine.com/img/radiusimages/rds165/rds165113.jpg)
(http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/47/85/1478544_5b3e6215.jpg)
-
Hint: what are the cracks?
Plumbers went there.......
sorry..
-
I suspect the cracks represent dried mud, although Zakalwe shows they could be igneous rock formations.
-
Hint: what are the cracks?
I certainly look at that and see a dried mud flat. But then, Houston is built on a dried mud flat that cracks up when it doesn't rain. The similarity to this early vision of the lunar surface must be why the Manned Space Flight Center was put here. Throw some AstroTurf on top and that version of the moon would be just like home to the astronauts!
-
The notion that Houston ever actually dries out cracks me up. I say this from living in the Nearly Undersea City for many years, including a lot of time at and around JSC, Ellington, etc.
-
The notion that Houston ever actually dries out cracks me up. I say this from living in the Nearly Undersea City for many years, including a lot of time at and around JSC, Ellington, etc.
You should have been here for the drought over the past two years. It was wonderfully (if only comparatively) dry, but at a cost. If you ever got up to Memorial park in the center of Houston and remember all the trees,the way it looks now would make you cry? We still do not have all the hiking trails in the Sam Houston National Forest cleared of the standing and fallen dead trees.
During a normal year, my yard will dry out so much that a 100 pounds of sand will disappear into the cracks. Now dry air, OTOH, is a rarity in normal years, particularly that close to Galveston Bay. While it may be hot and wet here during the long summer, it is nice to be able to backpack in January with my lightest gear, wearing shorts.
-
Well, my academic background is in reservoir sediment, so when I look at it I see irregular desiccation polygons, rather than the regular basaltic columns from slow cooling!
-
One of the bits in Destination Moon that I like--and I'm not being snarky--is the embedded educational Woody Woodpecker short.
-
The notion that Houston ever actually dries out cracks me up. I say this from living in the Nearly Undersea City for many years, including a lot of time at and around JSC, Ellington, etc.
Houston is the only place I've ever seen it rain inside a 737 (happened when they opened the passenger door and the dew point instantly went above the cabin temperature).
-
One of the bits in Destination Moon that I like--and I'm not being snarky--is the embedded educational Woody Woodpecker short.
That part is wonderful.
Every now and then I run into an HB who thinks rockets won't work in space, and I tell him he should listen to Woody.
-
Actually, they worked very hard to make it authentic, given the information they had at that time and the state of the film making art. RAH, who did the screenplay and served as technical adviser, wrote a piece called Making Destination Moon which tells about their struggles.
Reportedly, producer George Pal had his hands full keeping the money people off their backs. Fearing the plot was too dull, at one point TPTB wanted a trio of girl singers a la the Andrews Sisters included in the crew... ::)
-
Oddly enough, the woodpecker section is the part of DM that I like the least.
Fred
-
I've never liked that bird.
-
The related problem with the visual effects industry v. Apollo is that ground-breaking films leave a history. Over and over, if you listen to interviews or follow the mags, you get stuff like, "The original plan was a lot less footage of the bugs; they would mostly be realized with full-scale puppets, a la Alien. But then Tippet brought in a Go Motion rig he'd been developing on his last project...."
If there had been a team of people developing new methods to fake Apollo footage, you'd see the footprint of new techniques filtering out into the rest of the industry over the next few years. This would be even harder to bottle up -- the only way I can think of is having everyone involved sign a sort of long-term "non-compete," aka "I will walk away from the industry and not make another film in any capacity for the next twenty years."
Like THAT'S gonna fly.