NASA cannot and does not sponsor movies (in fact there is a legal disclaimer in the credits of "Tomorrowland" that states that NASA's cooperation with the film does not imply endorsement of it or the ideas it presents). NASA can (and does) enter into Space Act Agreements with filmmakers who want to use NASA's logo or its centers in their movies. The studios come to NASA, though sometimes the space agency reaches out when they hear about a space film (and sometimes the filmmakers say thank you, but no thank you [cough, "Gravity," cough]). Before the latest rash of films, there was another wave with "Armageddon," "Deep Impact," "Mission to Mars," "Contact" and "Space Cowboys" in the late 90s. But it extends even earlier: "Futureworld" in 1976 used NASA's mission control center, for example.
Quote from: collectSPACE on 05/26/2015 12:17 pmNASA cannot and does not sponsor movies (in fact there is a legal disclaimer in the credits of "Tomorrowland" that states that NASA's cooperation with the film does not imply endorsement of it or the ideas it presents). NASA can (and does) enter into Space Act Agreements with filmmakers who want to use NASA's logo or its centers in their movies. The studios come to NASA, though sometimes the space agency reaches out when they hear about a space film (and sometimes the filmmakers say thank you, but no thank you [cough, "Gravity," cough]). Before the latest rash of films, there was another wave with "Armageddon," "Deep Impact," "Mission to Mars," "Contact" and "Space Cowboys" in the late 90s. But it extends even earlier: "Futureworld" in 1976 used NASA's mission control center, for example.That's really interesting. Thanks! Do the agreements ever get to the point where the studios are "renting" NASA equipment/personnel/resources? With increasing popularity of some of these films, aside from the free publicity, I imagine it could be a not-insignificant source of revenue..
Keep in mind that NASA can refuse to co-operate with a film company if they decide that the project portrays NASA, NASA personnel, or space exploration in general in a negative light
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 05/27/2015 03:47 amKeep in mind that NASA can refuse to co-operate with a film company if they decide that the project portrays NASA, NASA personnel, or space exploration in general in a negative lightSurprises me they were okay with Capricorn One then...
“This is a highly unlikely film to get NASA cooperation, because they are the bad guys in the movie,” says Lazarus. “But I called my contact at the NASA Clear Lake facility [i.e. the Johnson Space Center], and he said he would have to see a script. I said to Peter, ‘We’re dead.’ I sent the script and my contact said, ‘Oh, it’s a good story! We’ll be happy to give you our prototype landing module.’ We didn’t have to build any of that! It came up from Orange County, California. In a sense, it’s tax-payer paid for, but anybody who’s been around the government knows that if it’s not something they like, you’re not going to get cooperation.”“We had untold savings, not to mention authenticity, to get those capsules and other materials from NASA,” Lazarus continues. “Much after the fact, I said to someone at NASA, ‘How could you possibly have approved that script?’ He said, ‘If it had gone to Washington, you would have been finished, but because we liked working with you on Futureworld, I took it upon myself to give cooperation.’ I said, ‘We’re really grateful and surprised.’ He said, ‘I thought you might be.’”
Among other notable films that used JSC and Cape facilities was "Capricorn One," if I'm remembering correctly. I know they used one of the unused LMs as their Mars lander -- either that, or a very high-fidelity trainer. (It was 1977, so if it was a real LM I bet it was LM-9. Could have been LM-2, I guess, though.)
The basic message of the movie was, "Awww, what the hell happened to that nice awesome future we were promised??"