Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space News

Walk on the Moon in IMAX 3D 191

Posted by samzenpus
from the the-eagle-has-landed dept.
HaveNoMouth writes "NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Tom Hanks are making an IMAX 3D movie about the Apollo moon landings to give viewers something like the actual experience of being on the moon. Complete with actors playing astronauts, mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface, this looks to be a real kick. The website for the movie itself is all shockwave, but it contains some nice behind-the-scenes photos of the production. Here's a QuickTime trailer. All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Walk on the Moon in IMAX 3D

Comments Filter:
  • Boom boom (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:46PM (#13451116)
    Best bit is, they've already got the set from the faked moon landings in 1969!
  • Spark that interest (Score:5, Informative)

    by rob_squared (821479) <rob&rob-squared,com> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:47PM (#13451122)
    I hope that this makes people feel awe about the moon again. Every now and again looking up and realizing there's footprints and hardware up there really gets to you.

    Here's some info about those last lines regarding the "hoax."

    http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ [arizona.edu]
    http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html [apollo-hoax.me.uk]

    • Yeah, I guess I'd be in awe of it if not for the fact that we went there (and haven't been there again) in THREE generations. Hell, my mom was less than half my age during the moon landing.

      I'll be awe inspired when NASA and the government support something awe inspiring. The only exciting things NASA has done in my life time is blow up a shuttle on launch and another on re-entry. Oh - and waste a bunch of money because they mixed metric and imperial.
      • Three generations? A generation in the generality is normally considered to be 25 years. In a specific family it might be less. But in your family it appears to be 12 years. Wow, you're fast breeders!
  • Some of the examples of the lunar hoax theory include that some things appear too close, or appear too far, or appear flat. Viewing this in 3D would fix that, I'd think.

    Just my 2 cents

    • Objects, particularly distant objects, appear different on the moon because there is essentially no atmosphere to diffuse or refract light. Painters talk about an effect called atmospheric perspective that is used in art to create a sense of depth. It's the way things become less sharp and lose contrast in the distance. This doesn't happen on the moon and probably causes some of the comments about things being the wrong distance or appearing flat. I wouldn't expect them to fully simulate this effect, but it
  • oh great... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by rwven (663186)
    I can hear the conspiracy theorists now...

    SEE!!! THEY WERE DOING THIS ALL ALONG!!!

    Bah.... I for one would love to check this thing out sometime.
  • Wow, this seems quite interesting.

    "All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."

    I wonder exactly how much better the special effects will be! Are they using the old photographs? Or are they generating new ones? One question I have is just how "real" the experience really is!

    With all of the data from Nasa's Rovers we should be able to get an IMAX 3D of the Martian Surface. Now that would be fun! Pretty soon we'll all be tal
    • This is not really as interesting as it may seem.

      This really is a docu-drama surrounded in fluff. I see this as "Apollo 13" in 3D, but with them actually landing.

      This may spark some interest in going to the moon. But this still cannot beat actually sending some camera's up there. Truthful information is the best information, at least to me.

      I've seen and loved all the IMAX space movies, but this one is going too far. Special effects is too icky here. Being a space-head I've tried the methods of weightlessnes
    • With all of the data from Nasa's Rovers we should be able to get an IMAX 3D of the Martian Surface

      I believe that we landed on the moon. With that said, why didn't we sent a NASA Rover to the moon first to test it? We could have also proved that we left hardware behind. Live video of looking at the junk left behind then pan to the Earthrise.

      Of course, I guess that event could easily be faked, too. But, if you look at the Earth really close in that video, you can see me flicking the porch light on/off real fa
  • Now you too can fake your own moon landing from the comfort of your own home after seeing this movie!
  • by z3r0w8 (664036) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:52PM (#13451152)
    How come I keep looking for the MTV flag?
  • Plate Tectonics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geomon (78680) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:53PM (#13451161) Homepage Journal
    "All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."

    I love conspiracy knotheads. They always ignore evidence that is readily available to them that would disprove their theory immediately.

    On several Apollo missions, astronauts planted mirrors facing Earth. The mirror were useful for measuring the distance of the moon from the Earth and the change in readings was used to confirm the theory of plate tectonics. We now use GPS surveys with permanently mounted stations.

    Funny how facts available to everyone can be ignored by people with an axe to grind.
    • Re:Plate Tectonics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sconeu (64226) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @11:01PM (#13451213) Homepage Journal
      I love conspiracy knotheads.

      I love Buzz Aldrin's response to conspiracy knotheads [sptimes.com].
      • That was GREAT!! A 72-year-old astronaut puts a guy on his ass with one punch!

        Thanks for the link.
      • What part of "Bang, zoom, to the moon!" didn't the conspiracy nutjob not understand?
      • I like it when the guy was suprised how well he got hit. I think he probably forgot that Aldrin was part of the military and had combat training. And for the moon landing they got the best of the best, the most fit mentally and physically, So even at 75 you would expect him to be fit.
    • I love conspiracy knotheads. They always ignore evidence that is readily available to them that would disprove their theory immediately.

      Huh, that sounds just like a lot of religious beliefs I can think of. Things like creationism ("Intelligent Design"), various points of human nature and the belief that George W Bush is a good president.

      • Huh, that sounds just like a lot of religious beliefs I can think of.

        Well.... yeah. But there are other groups (eco-extremists) who also ignore stunningly simple facts to promote their view.

        I tend to cut religous people more slack. Religious belief is one of the only truly human behaviors. As far as we can acertain, other animals do not possess religiosity.
    • Yeah, I read that article, too: The Most Important Thing Armstrong Left on the Moon [nasa.gov]

      Those lasers must have some pretty impressive control systems to hit such a small target (2-feet across) from 385,000km away, especially when you consider that the earth's surface is (on average) rotating at 73.773m/s.

      Now if only the US military's laser-guided weapons were half as good! :)

      • Now if only the US military's laser-guided weapons were half as good! :)

        That is an interesting contrast, isn't it? NASA's current shift to manned missions will probably shake out any of the remote sensing folks. That would make them free agents available for the DOD to pick up for cheap.
    • Re:Plate Tectonics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jeffdsimpson (737989) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @11:21PM (#13451328)
      Although the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment [wikipedia.org] were placed there by Apollos 11, 14 and 15 astronauts, the Soviets did the same thing with their unmanned Lunokhod 2 rover [wikipedia.org]. If you talk to your local hoax idiot, my guess is they will tell you the United States got their's onto the Moon using unmanned probes.

      Of course the Soviets actually provide the most compelling evidence that we did go to the Moon - their utter and complete silence. It seems strange that at the height of the Cold War, the United States biggest enemy would be completely silent and not say a word. You would have thought that if it is so obvious from the photographic and video record that we didn't go to the Moon, that the evil commies would have been all over it. But there is nothing.

      • Of course the Soviets actually provide the most compelling evidence that we did go to the Moon - their utter and complete silence. It seems strange that at the height of the Cold War, the United States biggest enemy would be completely silent and not say a word. You would have thought that if it is so obvious from the photographic and video record that we didn't go to the Moon, that the evil commies would have been all over it. But there is nothing.

        Agreed on the overall statement that the Soviet's silence p
      • I wonder if conspiracy theorists really believe that our enemies let us get away with the "hoax" or if they just never think it through that far?

        For a hoax to work, either every country on Earth that had RADAR had to
        1) Coincidentally turn it off for the 9-day length of every mission, or at least not aim it toward the sky.
        or
        2) Be in on the conspiracy.

        So, Russia and China never bothered to verify that our crafts were flying to the moon, landing there, and then leaving? Odd behavious from the inventors of the
    • One former NASA guy told me that one of the best proofs they had was the film of the astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather; they fell at the same rate, with the feather not fluttering at all. According to him, at the time there was no way to generate that good a vacuum in a large enough space to fake that.
  • by Cerdic (904049)
    ...mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface...

    I wonder if this is the same fake moon surface they used for the Apollo 11 "mission." It can't be - it has to look better since it will be in color and... 3D!
  • by tktk (540564)
    this movie might be the first remake that's better than the original (hoax).
  • Hi Def Trailers (Score:5, Informative)

    by OverlordQ (264228) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @11:01PM (#13451212) Journal
    Find the Hi-Def trailers here [apple.com]
  • Doesn't look real... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by creimer (824291) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @11:01PM (#13451218) Homepage
    Seems like they're not using any wire work to simulate walking on the moon. Space Cowboys [popmatters.com] is more real than this. ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    "Complete with actors playing astronauts, mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface, this looks to be a real kick."
  • And if you are a conspiracy theorist, you'll get a free pair of 3-D glasses and get punched out by Buzz Aldrin! [csicop.org]
  • by stox (131684)
    There are some movies that should never be remade, Capricorn One is one of them.
  • This is cool.
    The U.S Space and Rocket Center has the G-Force attraction http://www.spacecamp.com/museum/attractions/mu_sim s1text.php [spacecamp.com] that would couple with this very well. When I saw G-Force (many years ago) a film of a rocket launch was shown, on the ceiling, as you picked up more Gs. Not quit a perfect take-off simulation, but close. Being able to watch the I-Max after that attraction should be realy eye onpening.
  • In Apollo 13 they didn't make it to the moon. So where is the remake?

    qz
  • No need for this... (Score:2, Informative)

    by doxology (636469)
    Google's [google.com] got us covered.
  • I wonder if they'll be able to use the original sets NASA used in the 60s to fool the Russians into believing we could launch rockets? They were great. Very believable. Man, we could really pull a prank back then, as a country.
  • by Dr Tom Danger (621664) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @11:42PM (#13451427) Homepage
    You don't even understand, the secret is in what the y DON'T tell you. After Tom Hanks (the mildly retarded yet persistant shrimping captain turned astronaut) gets stranded after the lunar lander, loses 70 pounds, and is rescued when he triumphantly sends an email to an unwitting cute small time bookstore owner, who he later marries - and manages as the head of a womans baseball team. If that isn't sheer gold, it's at least Oscar worthy. Count me in. T dub out.
    • Oddly enough, if you read the book [amazon.com] by Winston Groom you'll find out that Forrest Gump was an astronaut as well, before crash landing in New Guinea...
  • /Sting (Score:3, Funny)

    by OneArmedMan (606657) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:09AM (#13451532)
    Giant Steps

    Are, what, you, take ..

    walking on the moon...
  • by fractalrock (662410) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:10AM (#13451537)
    I'm not sure why this struck me as being so funny: "NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Tom Hanks are making an IMAX 3D movie..." My emphasis...

    I can't help but think of similar matchups like "Today, the European Union, Venezuela, and Posh Spice all expressed their sympathy to the U.S...."

    Stupid, I know. I'll shut up now.
  • by Rob Carr (780861) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:11AM (#13451544) Homepage Journal
    They couldn't possibly have filmed this movie on a sound stage. They obviously sent real astronauts to the moon to film this, and they're only telling us it was filmed on Earth.
  • by tlambert (566799) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:15AM (#13451567)
    It's going to screw up the facts in people's minds.

    This is just like the experiments on observer accuracy, where you first demonstrate an incident on film, and then show still images not actually from the film, with some details changed, and then ask the observers questions about the original film version of events.

    So far I am not at all impressed with their production values or fact checking anyway... if you go to the web site, click on "Education", click the button in the top right corner, and go to the first "factoid", you will find this beauty:

    "The Astronaut's Spacesuits: The astronaut's spacesuits were designed to withstand the moon's average daylight temperature of 300 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Centigrade)."

    (direct link here: http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesolation/pops/ima ges/image_pop_r2c2-2.jpg [imax.com] )

    If they can't even do a temperature conversion, they are unlikely to produce anything more than inaccurate eye candy for "the masses".

    -- Terry
    • haven't you ever noticed that the marketing/sales department never actually reflect what the technical people are doing and what they can deliver.

      Don't judge a product by it's marketing hype - it's normally all horseshit anyways.

      • It's likely the same production team.

        When movies are made these days, it's almost always the same production team for the movie, the web site, the video game (if the movie isn't being made from an existing game plot line), the action figures, the Happy Meal(tm) boxes, and so on.

        Movie production in general is nothing more than one big marketing department. It doesn't give me hope that the content will match up to any standards of rigor when it comes to how accurate the movie ends up being. Particularly whe
        • And what have YOU been smoking today? It's obviously NOT the same production team making the web site.

          More than likely, the website is a 2 or 3 man show consisting of maybe an artist, a web designer and a web programmer. They likely just got the rough details of what the core production team wanted on the website in a meeting and proceeded to create the site all by themselves.
    • I can't speak to the accuracy of the website (except for obvious things like you pointed out), but I know that for at least elements of the movie relating to the LRV, they talked to a lot of the engineers that designed and developed it, to get it right. And it's not easy, either... much of the work that went into those missions is either lost in massive piles of documentation or just plain lost. So I'm willing to bet the movie does a great job conveying the reality of it.
  • 3D (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shippy (123643) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:24AM (#13451620)
    I've been wanting to check out some of this new 3D stuff IMAX is doing, but I'm wondering if I'll be able to get the full experience.

    Whenever I tried to read 3D books as a kid, I could see either red or blue with those glasses, but it would never mix and create what was supposed to be there since my eyes don't focus on the same point. It's not crazy-like. I drive w/o glasses just fine. However, it affects my ability to do anything 3D, including those pictures you're supposed to "look through" to see the real image.

    Anyway, does anybody knows how the audience will get the 3D experience? I'm sure you have to wear some sort of special pair of glasses, but if it depends on each lens requiring the other at the same point to do the special stuff, I'm not going to be able to see it.
    • Re:3D (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Roger W Moore (538166)
      I don't know about this film but I have seen a previous IMAX 3D film about cosmology and evolution (that other big scientific conspirancy :-)

      Like you I was extremely sceptical about whether the it would work having not been impressed by 3D TV and the like. However, the huge screen of the IMAX does make the 3D really work! It was incredible you had to duck fusing nuclei in a supernova, watch evoling animals dancing over the heads of the people in front etc. The huge screen gives the picture an enormous dep

    • Re:3D (Score:5, Informative)

      by sinewalker (686056) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @01:56AM (#13451963) Homepage
      I have a sister with the same problems, but she has no trouble with the 3D IMAX movies as screened here in Sydney, so maybe you'll be in luck.

      The Sydney IMAX theater uses special glasses that are a combination of Polaroid filters and high-speed shutters. I'll try to explain my simplistic understanding of them in the next few paras to convince you why I think it'll work for you, but do have a go in your city anyway! If it works, it's way-out, and if it doesn't, I've got a trick that will let you enjoy it in 2D anyway.

      In the Sydney theatre (which I assume is pretty much the same elsewhere), the glasses have polarised lenses, each off-set 90 degrees to the other. The theater's twin projectors send their images to the screen through polarised filters with the same offsets.

      (My Optics theory is a bit rusty to figure out the relationship here, but basically, the left-eye projector's image is polarised so it can be seen clearly through the left-eye lense of the glasses, and not clearly through the right-eye. And vice-versa of course).

      This means you get full-colour stereo 3D.

      I wear specs and the glasses fit comfortably over these (the theater glasses are more like some high-tech VR headset really).

      Polarised lenses aren't perfect of course, since some of the wrong image will get through. To minimise this cross-talk in your brain, the glasses are also covered with an LCD film that is switched to clear/opaque in sync with the projectors. A radio signal is sent from the top of the theater and picked up by the audince's glasses to maintain sync. Because cross-talk is eliminated in this way, I believe this should cancel out any processing difficulty your optic system seems have had with the old red/blue trick.

      Anyway, it's worth a try, because here's my 2D trick: The theater technicians advise you to try closing one eye if you feel sick during the movie. But keeping one eye closed for a long time is difficult. So, take an eye-patch with you (or a handkerchief or something) to cover your eye underneath the glasses. This way, you'll still be able to enjoy the movie in 2D through your open eye. But don't take the glasses off. If you take the glasses off, everything looks blurred because your naked eyes will see both images.

      Good luck!
      • by David Rolfe (38)
        I also can attest to the quality of the 3D effect. I've watched the available 3D Imax movies they have at the Kennedy Space center. I've been startled by "debris" flying from the screen at my face.

        I'm saying the sensation is real enough to make you flinch.
  • It's not Shockwave (Score:3, Informative)

    by jerw134 (409531) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:33AM (#13451659)
    It's Flash. They're both made by the same company, but they're two completely different things.
  • Talking about the conspiracy... Smart-1 is suposed to be taking pictures of the moon sites http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050304_moon_s noop.html [space.com]. I wonder why are they taking so long to reveal these pictures.
  • by ashitaka (27544) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:14AM (#13452189) Homepage
    I'm an IMAX freak. Have been ever since I watched the very first IMAX film [imdb.com] at Ontario Place in 1971

    Sendng and returning an IMAX camera to the moon is an idea that has stuck in my mind for a long time although I know it's impossible. At least you would know what you are looking at is the Real Thing and not a soundstage reproduction. Just the behaviour of the dust in the air is going to scream "fake!" to me.

  • by javiercr (902891) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @05:40AM (#13452546) Homepage
    Yet another remake of a 60s TV classic, wasn't bewitched enough? can't we come up with new ideas anymore? :)
  • by Calathea (557538) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @06:37AM (#13452703)
    But will Leela be able to watch the 3D film?
  • ...do we see cheese [slashdot.org]?
  • I grew up on Chesley Bonestell, and movies like "Destination: Moon" and "The Conquest of Space" and "2001: A Space Odyssey."

    All these special effects simulations, no matter how brilliantly done, are ultimately unsatisfying because they never have any surprises. They always represent _exactly_ what everyone _expects_ space to be like.

    The first time the astronauts walked on the moon, and kicked up those little puffs of dust that fell _instantly_ down into place--I knew it was real. Because nobody had ever tho
  • Not because I don't believe the moon landing happened...

    But have there been any high enough photos taken of the lunar surface that show the landing sites? (ones that show the equipment left behind).

    Is it even possible?
  • IMAX "Documentaries" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by G1aucon (859522)
    To be fair, IMAX definitely can get a lot of things right - but I hate its films cavalier approach to "documentary" filmmaking. I just watched the fighter jet movie at the new Air and Space Museum in VA - there were insulting amounts of CGI that the film tries to pass off as authentic dogfight footage. All the films try to have some kind of narrative as well, which inevitably comes off as contrived.

    I never understood why the IMAX people weren't one of the first ones on the ground after 9/11. That's a chance

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...