Author Topic: The Apollo 18 Movie thread (Read 84733 times)

rsp1202 · « **Reply #120 on:** 09/10/2011 05:14 am »

Quote from: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 02:46 am

In a similar vein, I'm trying to remember the name of a movie I saw once, well, I saw a brief part of it.

A lunar crew landed on the moon and are exploring around, and on top of a rock, covered in lunar dust, they find a tattered Confederate battle flag...

That's all I can remember of it. Anybody else ever see this movie??

There was "First Men In The Moon," where an international crew of astronauts land on the Moon in (then) present day and find a British Union Jack that Cavor and his friends left behind on their jaunt during Victoria's reign. Could that be what you're thinking of?

Lobo · « **Reply #121 on:** 09/13/2011 06:12 am »

So has anyone actually seen this movie? And is it any good?

kch · « **Reply #122 on:** 09/13/2011 07:46 am »

Quote from: Lobo on 09/13/2011 06:12 am

So has anyone actually seen this movie? And is it any good?

Saw it when it first came out (I was nine). Haven't seen it since. You might be able to rent it. Here's a pretty good synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Men_in_the_Moon_(1964_film)

Lobo · « **Reply #123 on:** 09/13/2011 05:19 pm »

Quote from: kch on 09/13/2011 07:46 am

Quote from: Lobo on 09/13/2011 06:12 am
So has anyone actually seen this movie? And is it any good?

Saw it when it first came out (I was nine). Haven't seen it since. You might be able to rent it. Here's a pretty good synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Men_in_the_Moon_(1964_film)

Ummm...I was talking about "Apollo 18", the genesis of this thread. Worth going out and seeing? Waiting for DVD? Or bag all together?

Blackstar · « **Reply #124 on:** 09/13/2011 06:45 pm »

Quote from: Lobo on 09/13/2011 05:19 pm

Ummm...I was talking about "Apollo 18", the genesis of this thread. Worth going out and seeing? Waiting for DVD? Or bag all together?

I saw it. Go back a little bit in the thread.

My suggestion would be to wait for it on DVD. But if you want to go now, go to a cheap showing, because otherwise you'll be mad.

I give them marks for effort--a lot of the footage looks like the guys are actually on the Moon. I also think that the premise--ghost story on the Moon--is a good one. They also get high marks for technical accuracy. For example, without spoiling it, there is a great threat delivered late in the film that is technically adept. And although I have not seen anybody mention it, I think that the story holds up very well on its own. They managed to close a number of potential plot holes (for instance, there's a line of dialogue that explains how the footage survived).

I take away marks for acting (poor), and the "found footage" aspect, which has been done a lot and is no longer original. The directing is not great, but I think that both the directing and the acting are limited by the found footage requirement. (Put a different way: once they decided that this was going to be "found footage," that required them to make it jittery, make it look amateur, etc., and made it hard to do other things, like make it look majestic and beautiful.)

I'm actually hoping that there are some good extras on the DVD when it comes out, because I think it might be interesting to learn how it got made and why it got made. Whose idea was it? How did they convince anybody to fund it? I think that the fact this movie got made is notable in its own right.

TimL · « **Reply #125 on:** 09/13/2011 06:49 pm »

I enjoyed it for what it was..a low budget horror movie. As others have posted, it's NOT Apollo 13 by any stretch of the imagination. I agree, wait for the DVD or catch it at the Saturday Matinee discount price.

Couple scenes had me flashing back to my days playing Buzz Aldrin's "Race into Space" game...

Lobo · « **Reply #126 on:** 09/19/2011 03:36 pm »

Ok, thanks for the evaluation. :-)

TheFallen · « **Reply #127 on:** 09/19/2011 04:14 pm »

I saw Apollo 18 last week...it was pretty entertaining. Don't know if this was already brought up in this thread, but the epilogue at the end of the film actually paves the way for a sequel. Not "Apollo 19"...but a horror story involving missing moon rocks that takes place on Earth. Won't say anymore since it would be spoilers

Apollo 18 was made for $5 million and earned $23 million worldwide ($15 mil in the U.S.) the last time I checked online. Not blockbuster-status, but it IS a box office success

Quote from: Oberon_Command on 09/09/2011 02:18 pm

Are you sure you're not mixing up science fiction and science fantasy (which is what Star Wars actually is)? Granted that it's easy to do since there aren't a whole lot of proper hard SF movies, but they are pretty distinct things, and I don't think this criticism holds up for actual SF. If it has "magic" in it, it's not really science fiction - it's science fantasy.

Star Wars became sci-fi the minute George Lucas used "midichlorians" to explain the Force.

That, and the Kepler-16B news last week

Cog_in_the_machine · « **Reply #128 on:** 09/19/2011 04:45 pm »

Quote from: TheFallen on 09/19/2011 04:14 pm

Star Wars became sci-fi the minute George Lucas used "midichlorians" to explain the Force.

There isn't anything particularly scientific about the notion that microbes can give people telekinetic powers. It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

TheFallen · « **Reply #129 on:** 09/19/2011 04:52 pm »

Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 04:45 pm

Quote from: TheFallen on 09/19/2011 04:14 pm
Star Wars became sci-fi the minute George Lucas used "midichlorians" to explain the Force.

There isn't anything particularly scientific about the notion that microbes can give people telekinetic powers. It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

Point taken...but it was a lame concept that was one of many lame concepts that Lucas came up with in The Phantom Menace...though as a whole, Lucas started to ruin Star Wars when he had Greedo shoot first in the '97 Special Edition. That, and the Ewoks. But now I'm veering off-topic...

I'm just glad Apollo 18 came up with a semi-decent explanation for how a Saturn V rocket could launch without people thinking it was sending folks back to the Moon

Blackstar · « **Reply #130 on:** 09/19/2011 06:36 pm »

Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 04:45 pm

It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

YOU MEAN THAT CAN'T HAPPEN??!!!!

Blackstar · « **Reply #131 on:** 09/19/2011 06:49 pm »

Quote from: TheFallen on 09/19/2011 04:14 pm

1-I saw Apollo 18 last week...it was pretty entertaining. Don't know if this was already brought up in this thread, but the epilogue at the end of the film actually paves the way for a sequel. Not "Apollo 19"...but a horror story involving missing moon rocks that takes place on Earth. Won't say anymore since it would be spoilers

2-Apollo 18 was made for $5 million and earned $23 million worldwide ($15 mil in the U.S.) the last time I checked online. Not blockbuster-status, but it IS a box office success

1-I didn't catch that. But I do give them props for a number of things. Several times throughout the film I found myself wondering "Why don't they do...?" and then there would be some kind of explanation that closed that hole. For instance, we learn that there's a lot of footage because the spacecraft was wired for extra cameras (on purpose). Same with the ending. The story is internally consistent, meaning that once you accept the premise and the assumptions, it holds up and doesn't violate any of them.

2-Thanks for the numbers. I knew that they only spent $5 million and they were pushing $20 million in box office. The usual rule of thumb is that a movie has to earn 2-3 times its cost in order to break even (that extra money has to pay for distribution, advertising, and theaters). They'll pick up some more on rentals and TV. Not a lot, but some. Normally I don't care if movies are successful, but I'd note that Moon cost about $5 million and it made a lot less than Apollo 18:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moon09.htm

Now Moon is certainly a much better film, but it essentially failed. Because Apollo 18 succeeded that opens the possibility for other near-future science fiction movies. Not much hope (especially when dreck like Transformers 3 made a billion dollars), but at least a sliver.

savuporo · « **Reply #132 on:** 09/19/2011 07:45 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 09/19/2011 06:36 pm

Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 04:45 pm
It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

YOU MEAN THAT CAN'T HAPPEN??!!!!

Not sure about the "super" part but radiation has caused people to become heroes in the history.

luke strawwalker · « **Reply #133 on:** 09/20/2011 02:36 am »

I went and saw this Sunday night...

It was ok... I only went because I read on another forum that the special effects and props in the film were top-notch, and they were, for the most part. The story was pretty thin, and somewhat predictable, and as for scary, well, there was only ONE scene in the movie I found particularly scary, and basically you KNEW it was coming due to the filming style... (as my English-teacher wife says while watching TV nowdays when certain comments are made or certain things shown-- FORESHADOWING!!!!) It was kind of interesting and well done, considering. Just don't look for a whole lot of plot, because it's rather pedantic and predictable. The acting was ok... I didn't recognize a SOUL in the thing, so I don't know if they used "no-name stars", "up and coming wannabe's", or just the modern equivalent of "the Monkees" and these guys are instantly recognizable to anybody under 20 and I'm too old to notice... LOL:)

The LK lander is COOL... I don't want to give anything away, but there were some "plot holes" revolving around that and the LM... but the "story" probably woundn't have worked very well (or at all) without it.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was an M. Night Shayamalan (sp? whatever...) movie... kinda like "Signs" on the moon, only without Mel Gibson and that hair-lipped kid...

Later! OL JR

TheFallen · « **Reply #134 on:** 09/20/2011 06:54 am »

Quote from: savuporo on 09/19/2011 07:45 pm

Quote from: Blackstar on 09/19/2011 06:36 pm
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 04:45 pm
It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

YOU MEAN THAT CAN'T HAPPEN??!!!!
Not sure about the "super" part but radiation has caused people to become heroes in the history.

Like Marie Curie? That didn't end too well for her..

Quote from: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2011 02:36 am

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was an M. Night Shayamalan (sp? whatever...) movie... kinda like "Signs" on the moon, only without Mel Gibson and that hair-lipped kid...

The twist wasn't stupid enough for this to be a Shyamalan film

Blackstar · « **Reply #135 on:** 09/20/2011 04:08 pm »

Quote from: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2011 02:36 am

1-I didn't recognize a SOUL in the thing, so I don't know if they used "no-name stars", "up and coming wannabe's", or just the modern equivalent of "the Monkees" and these guys are instantly recognizable to anybody under 20 and I'm too old to notice... LOL:)

2-The LK lander is COOL... I don't want to give anything away, but there were some "plot holes" revolving around that and the LM... but the "story" probably woundn't have worked very well (or at all) without it.

3-If I didn't know better, I'd think this was an M. Night Shayamalan (sp? whatever...) movie.

1-There are really only three actors. The LM Pilot was played by a guy who currently has a role on the SyFy Channel's Alphas (which is a great show, in my opinion). I did not recognize the commander at all, and if you look them up on IMDB you see that they've done nothing notable.

2-A colleague of mine complained that they used the wrong version of the LK, but I give them props for trying to be accurate and not simply inventing their own Russian lander. I did not notice any plot holes (which generally means lapses in logic or inconsistencies). But they did stretch certain things a lot, like the LK working after a long time abandoned.

3-The correct spelling is "Shamalamadingdong."

savuporo · « **Reply #136 on:** 09/24/2011 02:39 am »

Quote from: TheFallen on 09/20/2011 06:54 am

Quote from: savuporo on 09/19/2011 07:45 pm
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/19/2011 06:36 pm
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 04:45 pm
It's on the same level as radiation turning people into super heroes.

YOU MEAN THAT CAN'T HAPPEN??!!!!
Not sure about the "super" part but radiation has caused people to become heroes in the history.

Like Marie Curie? That didn't end too well for her..

Yes, like her. And i have known a few people involved in Chernobyl containment ops. It rarely ends well for the heroes ..

Blackstar · « **Reply #137 on:** 09/26/2011 04:10 pm »

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1936/1

Defending Apollo
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 26, 2011

Back in 1995 the debut of Apollo 13 was considered to be something of a minor miracle by space aficionados. After all, there had been very few movies that had attempted to tell the stories of the American space program. Apollo 13 had a big budget, a major director, and the biggest star in Hollywood. The film appealed to a broad audience and was a certifiable blockbuster. Space enthusiasts could not hope for a better deal, even if they did enjoy pointing out a few minor inaccuracies in the film.

Apollo 13 made it possible for both Gene Krantz and Chris Kraft to publish high-profile books, and made Jim Lovell—the real one—famous all over again. What made the event even sweeter was that it gave Tom Hanks the juice he needed to convince HBO to film the outstanding miniseries From the Earth to the Moon.

Make no mistake: Apollo 18 is no Apollo 13 by a long shot. It’s a small-budget horror movie involving a whole lot of people that you’ve never heard of. The reviews have not been kind.

While I generally agree with those comments, in all the criticism a little perspective has been lost. Apollo 18 was made on a shoestring budget—reportedly $5 million, which is less than most of the television pilots that just debuted for the fall season, most of which will be gone by March. It has already made more than $25 million domestically. Compared to 2009’s Moon, which was a far better film in many ways and packed an emotional wallop that this movie lacks, Apollo 18 is a success. The rule of thumb is that a movie has to make two to three times its budget in order to break even, so Apollo 18 has already made a modest return on investment and will make its backers more money when it goes to DVD and television.

luke strawwalker · « **Reply #138 on:** 09/30/2011 08:49 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 09/20/2011 04:08 pm

I did not notice any plot holes (which generally means lapses in logic or inconsistencies). But they did stretch certain things a lot, like the LK working after a long time abandoned.

Well, I'd say "not being able to use their own LM they were living in to return to orbit, but being able to use an LK that had been partially stripped and gutted of wiring and components internally and had been sitting on the lunar surface for who knows how long was a pretty big plot hole...

later! OL JR

PS. sorry if that's a spoiler for anybody but I'm assuming that the 99% of the population with ANY interest in seeing this whatsoever has already done so, and that any substantial residual fraction of those left over does not read this board/thread.

Blackstar · « **Reply #139 on:** 09/30/2011 09:11 pm »

I don't think that qualifies as a "plot hole." A plot hole is generally defined as some major thing that is left out, not stretching the truth. For instance, in Star Trek it's not a plot hole that they travel faster than light.

Also, I think your assumption that it's okay to post spoilers is faulty--I've seen a number of posts from people who are waiting for the DVD. You could have at least posted a spoiler alert.