SilverWook

The moon hoax theories been around since the 70's. (The movie Capricorn One was partially inspired by them.) I've read somewhere it paralleled the cynicism of the post Watergate era.

If I heard anything about it at all in the 80's, it was from the Flat Earth Society, which apparently is still around in some form.

That pesky FOX special was like pulling the stake out of Dracula's skeleton.

If people aren't willing to learn a little history from reputable sources, there isn't much that will change their minds. The space program was covered pretty well in my elementary and high school years, even if the textbooks weren't always up to date.

There is something disquieting about people questioning history in the face of obvious facts though. There are far darker events of history people either through ignorance or malice insist are fiction, and that scares me.

What I was trying to say is there is no way to know what kind of Star Wars film a director is going to make until they actually do so, and we won't get an inkling until at least the teaser trailer.

All we can do is cross our fingers and hope for the best. :)

Thanks for making me feel better about not loving the Apes reboot. The fact I saw it with someone who'd never seen the original film didn't help much.

There are so many improbable plot points going on in that movie I don't know where to start. ;)

Darned if I know where the heck they can go in a sequel that is fresh and new. If they focus on Taylor and crew returning to Earth, the surprise ending is already out of the bag...

Think back to the movies Lucas watched before selecting Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand. Would you come away from Eyes of Laura Mars or Eye of the Needle saying that's the guy to make the next SW film?

BmB said:

 

SilverWook said:

If I was unable to think clearly and jumped to conclusions easily, I don't think I would have been offered a moderator position on this site. ;)

Was that an appeal to authority?

Authority over a complaining website for nerds no less, not sure how that is at all relevant.

 

I'm simply refuting your claim about me. And you skipped over everything else I had to say.

If that's how you really feel about this website and it's members, I wonder why you're hanging around here in the first place.

Can we go back to chuckling over misinterpretations of Kubrick now?

BmB said:

 

timdiggerm said:

Any thoughts on the link I posted?

He makes fair points, but at the same time, commercial imaging tech is always behind by about 5-10 years from the top secret stuff. Pretty sure they had large format grainless film for their spyplanes well in advance of any such thing as grainless even being proposed on the civilian market.

Even so, without speculation about what they could and could not have had, slowmotion is not the only way to fake low gravity.

TheBoost said:

No. Points not needed. Logic does not work against ass-craziness.

That settles that then doesn't it?

SilverWook said:

My father worked at NASA and JPL in the glory days. It's the one thing in the complicated relationship I had with him I was always proud of. (And one of the few things in a long career that wasn't classified, though I could barely get him to talk about those days.)

When I stood looking up at what's left of the Apollo 1 launch platform last summer, it really hit me that it would have been hard for him to talk about the astronauts that died. He had met them many times in the course of his job. My mom told me quite a bit about that awful day in 1967.

So, when I feel the urge to throttle these moon hoax guys, it's because they piss on the graves of brave men, and insult everyone who ever worked to put Americans on the moon and bring them home safe.

So you are emotionally invested and unable to think clearly about the matter despite having no real knowledge of what your father did because it was all top secret.

So lets play pretend for a moment and say it really was staged, who is pissing on whose grave now?

I won't pretend to know anything about this for sure, but you seem to jump to conclusions far too easily. And the only thing left to do is to find out more.
It certainly would not be out of character for the US government to lie and cheat. This is what they always do. I don't think there are many examples of something they did not in fact lie and cheat about. It is normal, for it not to be lied about in some manner, now that would be remarkable.

 

If I was unable to think clearly and jumped to conclusions easily, I don't think I would have been offered a moderator position on this site. ;)

I actually know quite a lot about my father's non classified work.

In just the past few years, we've had satellite imagery showing all the landing sites on the moon. This of course does not satisfy the hoax believers. Even if a probe with HD camera goes back, hovers right over the descent stages and rovers, and got closeups of footprints, the usual suspects will mutter "fake".

In any case, it's a testament to Stanley Kubrick that The Shining is still being deconstructed and over analyzed 33 years later. To my Mom and me, it was one of our favorite scary as hell movies. "Talking to Tony" was a running gag between us for years. :)

Play nice, guys.

adywan said:

The Sun are already speculating about a possible location.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/4764010/Filming-of-Star-Wars-VII-to-be-in-a-disused-quarry-by-Bluewater-mall.html

That has to be a joke, right? Dr. Who filmed in just about every quarry in the U.K. back in the day, or so it seemed. ;)

It will be interesting to see what studio is used.

It also occurred to me they might film inside Star Tours just as an inside joke.

Those are some awesome locales, Bingowings! Isn't that crystal cave deadly hot inside though?

There's a privately owned Hawaiian island (whose name escapes me at the moment) that has some Martian landscapes I don't think have been in any movies.

So. "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell", then? ;)

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-is-being-kick-started-with-dynamite-jj-abrams-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii.html

It's official. And Kasdan's on board too!

Yeah, and I thought TMP was controversial. ;)

Excellent point about Kirk not having a strong father figure early in his life. Pike seems to have become his father figure now.

I do agree the KM hack should have been less obvious. The bridge simulator should have also been more immersive ala Star Trek II. They could at least darken the control room windows during the actual test! How can anybody concentrate when you can see the instructors watching you from a brightly room on high?

Maybe some fanedit can address that...

Just for fun, share a real world location that could easily be used as a setting in the sequels. I'll start with the capital city of Brazil, Brasilia...

Warbler said:

BmB said:

"Cold Logic", "Cold Reality". Hah. Try using actual logic and observation instead of blanket statements and we might get talking. What you probably really meant to say was "I don't believe it".

Personally I don't know. Kubrick obviously was trying to say something. There's a lot of good points in favour and a lot of good points against. What seems to be likely is some sort of hybrid answer, i.e. they faked the first one or two to "win" the space race and then went on to actually go.

At any rate, if anybody could fake it, t'was Kubrick.

if you actually believe any of the moon landings were fake, you're nuts.  Did you watch the video that timdiggerm posted?   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

 

Do not mess with Buzz! I actually cheered the first time I saw that on the news.

BmB said:

 

SilverWook said:

Anyone here who believes in any of this moon landing hoax hogwash, might be interested in some prime Florida property I have for sale. ;)

You're still not making an actual point, just ridiculing opposing beliefs. This is not logic.

 

My father worked at NASA and JPL in the glory days. It's the one thing in the complicated relationship I had with him I was always proud of. (And one of the few things in a long career that wasn't classified, though I could barely get him to talk about those days.)

When I stood looking up at what's left of the Apollo 1 launch platform last summer, it really hit me that it would have been hard for him to talk about the astronauts that died. He had met them many times in the course of his job. My mom told me quite a bit about that awful day in 1967.

So, when I feel the urge to throttle these moon hoax guys, it's because they piss on the graves of brave men, and insult everyone who ever worked to put Americans on the moon and bring them home safe.

BmB said:

Aaand they give it to this noob.

The man has no talent. Franchise dead.

Would you rather they had given it to Mr. Bay? ;)

CP3S said:

Not surprising, it was very un-Star Trek like and very clearly made for and marketed at people who were not fans of Star Trek.

Most people I know who loved it don't care for Star Trek in general, and very few Trek fans I know can stand the thing. I got really tired of people saying things like, "You know, I didn't think I liked Star Trek, but that was actually pretty good!" Yeah... No, the fact is you still don't like Star Trek; you liked this because it was made to appeal to you, and it succeeded.

I overheard a woman talking on her phone in a restaurant about the movie once. (Praying I didn't hear spoilers as I hadn't had a chance to see it at the time.) She wasn't a Trekker, but she totally got the people of different creeds and backgrounds all working together. And she was equally impressed with the hopeful portrayal of the future. Isn't that a big part of what Trek has always been about?

msycamore, are you still having technical problems? Been too quiet on this front lately...

Somebody obviously is reaching a bit to be offended, and hasn't seen the movie either.

Yeah, let's get all the lens flare jokes out of our system. ;)

What reliable source has even mentioned how much money is involved? Or that Steven pressured Abrams into taking the gig? Let's stick to the facts, of which there aren't many yet.

Lucas only directed one film out of the OT, so I don't see what the big deal is here.

Mavimao said:

I don't get all of the love for JJ Abrams - I think he's a decent TV director and producer, but I feel like I'm living in some weird parallel world when people praise his Star Trek reboot. I didn't mind the concept, but the execution was atrotious and totally went against the whole mythos of star trek. The smug kirk eating the apple during the kobiashi maru, him driving a car over a cliff, Spock and Uhura... WTF? It was pretty and exciting but dumb - a play told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It was about seeing Kirk and company on the start of the path that makes them who they are when we saw them in the series. Maturity comes with life experience. That "smugness" and the willingness to take risk have always been part of Kirk, tempered by the responsibility of command.

Uhura flirted with Spock (to no avail) in "The Man Trap". Those scenes were cut out of syndication prints for decades.

Anyone here who believes in any of this moon landing hoax hogwash, might be interested in some prime Florida property I have for sale. ;)

Imrahil said:

I'm devastated.  I hate him so much.

What did Mr. Abrams do to you personally?

Some of the negative reactions to the news over at Trekmovie are making me embarrassed to be an old school Trekker again.

At the end of the day, it's just a directing job. A dream one to be sure...