Is this movie faked?
I don't get it... how is this movie possible? Is this movie faked with special effects?
shareThe movie contains a mixture of archival footage/CGI and archival recordings/new voice over work.
share
MovieChat Forums > Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (2005) Discussion > Is this movie faked?
It's a re-creation of what it was like to travel to the moon. All the motion shots on the lunar surface were shot in a studio with the 3D IMAX camera. What you saw mostly in the documentary sections was archival photos and footage.
share[deleted]
On many occasions, the astronauts took stereo photos of the lunar landscape. They'd take one photo, move the camera to one side while keeping it pointed in the same direction, then take another. The effect is startling. The Apollo 11 landing site looks flat in normal 2d images, but in 3d you can see the ground is pretty uneven.
In the movie, they used several of these stereo pairs as background, with actors in spacesuits green-screened into the foreground. When the camera moved, or took shots that could not have been taken from a man on the surface, they used either CGI or a studio.
One of the details they went to some lengths to get right was the dust. In vacuum and 1/6th gravity, dust kicked-up by astronauts, rover wheels or LM rockets does not behave anything like it does on Earth. Instead of billowing outwards or getting suspended in the air, dust on the Moon flys out some distance in a ballistic arc. The harder you kick it the farther it goes (and in 1/6th g, it can go a long way), but it always falls back to the surface and does not billow. It's impossible to get this effect on the Earth, so the movie makers made their faux lunar surface solid, and CG'ed the dust and astronauts' footprints. Well done!
My only gripe is that they couldn't resist adding sound to the rockets in space. In vacuum, there is no sound. Deal with it, Hollywood! To date, "Firefly" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are the only productions I know of that got that right.
All in all, I highly recommend this.
[deleted]
Actually, I think that there is a tiny atmosphere on the moon, so you can hear sound. Or, they just went for the "the audience will be amazed that we made sound effects" thing.
Zombi; zombi; zombi; zombi nation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Even with modern CG techniques, the dust behaviour looks less than realistic for the conditions, largely due to the floor being rigid. How did they get it right without CG in 1969?
sharethe moon landing was a big hoax matey,jesus they would have been back before now wouldnt they???come on you gullable americans it didnt happen get to grips with it.
sharethe moon landing was a big hoax matey,
Wrong.
jesus they would have been back before now wouldnt they???
After the race to the South Pole in 1911, nobody else set foot on the pole for almost 45 years. It's been nearly 48 years since man's first (and only) exploration of the deepest part of the ocean - the Marianas Trench. The reason is basically the same: Nobody has thought it worth the trouble and expense to go back.
come on you gullable americans it didnt happen get to grips with it.
Let's see, on one hand, there's a mountain of verifiable evidence about the Apollo Project, the design, construction, testing and performance of the equipment, the hundreds of pounds of physical samples brought back, plus years of data radioed back by the experiments left behind, hours of video & film footage that could only have been taken in 1/6th G vacuum, and the personal memoirs & recollections of tens of thousands of people who participated in all stages of the project (they aren't shy about it).
On the other hand, you've got some flashy videos by proven liars (such as Bart Sibrel, Dave Percy and others) that rely on the viewers ignorance of history and engineering to con people by appealing to their prejudices.
So who's being gullible?
"the moon landing was a big hoax matey,jesus they would have been back before now wouldnt they???come on you gullable americans it didnt happen get to grips with it."
It's not like we only had the one moon landing, we had several, we learned from them, and we haven't needed to go back. It's not a big surprise, unless you think they should turn the moon into some kind of holiday spot for astronauts.
[deleted]
There is no atmosphere on the Moon. There may be some sporadic evaporations, but no constant atmosphere to provide vehicle for sound to spread.
I think they went for the amazement factor. It would have been funny to not use IMAX's sound capabilities. :)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_030922.html
check it out, sound can travel thru space
[deleted]
Without having been with them - how can you say YES or NO? You can only assume. And that assuming goes on forever as - no one knows for sure.
"If only you could see what i've seen with your eyes"
[deleted]
Never?
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/
Especially watch the preview clip of the "Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference" (see also http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=22 -- most people have never seen this footage, it happened live and obviously you'd think these 3 guys -- being part of history -- would be excited, proud, hard to sit still... Instead listen to how they speak, look at their faces and body language! Were they acting out a part under possible threats to them and their families?
Also watch this 2 minute clip of the Director of the films linked above; he used to be a total "moon landing" fan as a kid until certain questions remained unanswered... http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=11
Not to mention the non-parallel shadows in the never-again-shown-to-the-public photos, again shown in the previews on the above site...
Keep an open mind, people! Do you think "your government" always tells you the truth?!
- - -
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.
[deleted]
I agree. The variety of hoax evidence is a joke, and easily refuted. The easiest proof the landings took place is the simple fact the Soviets didn't question their authenticity. They monitored the landings in the same way as NASA, and had there been any evidence the spacecraft didn't land, or didn't leave orbit, they would have cried foul to the high heavens. It didn't happen, because the landings did happen. Enough said.
shareLook at how Kimi Raikonnen sits looking uneasy at a Formula-1 post-race press conference. Was his win that we all just witnessed a fake?
Plus the Apollo 11 astronauts looked happy enough when they were picked out of the ocean, maybe a couple of weeks in quarentine made a difference.
Budman57 wrote:
I agree. The variety of hoax evidence is a joke, and easily refuted. The easiest proof the landings took place is the simple fact the Soviets didn't question their authenticity. They monitored the landings in the same way as NASA, and had there been any evidence the spacecraft didn't land, or didn't leave orbit, they would have cried foul to the high heavens. It didn't happen, because the landings did happen. Enough said.
The Soviets did refute. The day after the alleged landing, every Soviet newspaper declared the landing to be fake. Two days later, incidentally right after the USA's pledge of shipments of huge quantities of grains to the USSR, each newspaper refuted its previous articles. The USSR has had one of its worst harvests ever and needed the foreign aid.
The Soviets did refute. The day after the alleged landing, every Soviet newspaper declared the landing to be fake. Two days later, incidentally right after the USA's pledge of shipments of huge quantities of grains to the USSR, each newspaper refuted its previous articles. The USSR has had one of its worst harvests ever and needed the foreign aid.
This is in considerable conflict with my memory of events, in which the Soviet press reported the landing, though without giving it particular prominence.
Last year the leading Russian spaceflight magazine, Novosti Kosmonautiki, carried an article by one of the Russian tracking engineers who had taken part in their monitoring of the Apollo programme. He had no doubts of the reality of Apollo.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml
Edit to add: I've tried searching the web for data on US-Russian wheat deals, and the earliest I can find is 1972. Unless you can provide some actual evidence of a) a 1969 wheat deal and b) a 1969 Soviet press report casting doubt on Apollo, your story will carry little weight.
I always tell people the same thing as Budman57, the Soviets would have pitched a fit if it was fake.
share