New 'Apollo 11' Documentary Makers Discovered Never-Seen-Before Mission Footage (collectspace.com) 65
This year's Sundance Film Festival opened with a new 93-minute documentary crafted entirely from archival footage of NASA's Apollo 11 mission, reports collectSpace -- including some never seen before:
In the course of sourcing all of the known imagery, the National Archives (NARA) staff members made a discovery that changed the course of the project -- an unprocessed collection of 65mm footage, never before seen by the public. Unbeknownst to even the NARA archivists, the reels contained wide format scenes of the Saturn V launch, the inside of the Launch Control Center and post-mission activities aboard the USS Hornet aircraft carrier... The resulting transfer -- from which the documentary was cut -- is the highest resolution, highest quality digital collection of Apollo 11 footage in existence. "We knew that the clock was ticking, this material had been sitting around for 50 years," said director Todd Douglas Miller, commenting on the motivation behind the film scanning effort.
The other unexpected find was a massive cache of audio recordings -- more than 11,000 hours -- comprising the individual tracks from 60 members of the Mission Control team. "Apollo 11" film team members wrote code to restore the audio and make it searchable and then began the multi-year process of listening to and documenting the recordings. The effort yielded new insights into key events of the moon landing mission, as well as surprising moments of humor and camaraderie. "Much of the footage in 'Apollo 11' is, by virtue of both access and proper preservation, utterly breathtaking," wrote The Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Fienberg in his review of the film. "The sense of scale, especially in the opening minutes, sets the tone as [the] rocket is being transported to the launch pad and resembles nothing so much as a scene from 'Star Wars' only with the weight and grandeur that come from 6.5 million pounds of machinery instead of CG."
The other unexpected find was a massive cache of audio recordings -- more than 11,000 hours -- comprising the individual tracks from 60 members of the Mission Control team. "Apollo 11" film team members wrote code to restore the audio and make it searchable and then began the multi-year process of listening to and documenting the recordings. The effort yielded new insights into key events of the moon landing mission, as well as surprising moments of humor and camaraderie. "Much of the footage in 'Apollo 11' is, by virtue of both access and proper preservation, utterly breathtaking," wrote The Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Fienberg in his review of the film. "The sense of scale, especially in the opening minutes, sets the tone as [the] rocket is being transported to the launch pad and resembles nothing so much as a scene from 'Star Wars' only with the weight and grandeur that come from 6.5 million pounds of machinery instead of CG."
Does it show Stanley Kubrick yelling at them? (Score:5, Funny)
That guy was so demanding.
Re: My question is: (Score:2)
Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean anyone has to spend the time and money to digitally transfer the content and make it available for free online.
Re: (Score:2)
I fexed it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, the biggest audience for this film will be the Kubrick Hoax Crew. They will just absolutely swarm to watch this multiple times, scrutinizing every scene, sniffing for clues to The Hoax.
Just as a joke and to rile them up a bit, the producers of the film should have included Kubrick in the credits:
"Special Area 51 Advisor from the Afterlife Beyond the Grave: Stanley Kubrick"
At any rate, social media will be burning with a fresh crop of "proof" that the Moon Landings were faked, based on eviden
Re: (Score:3)
The BBC said that about the Doctor Who episodes they destroyed. Those occasionally turn up, unless you're suggesting they raised Stanley Kubrick and William Hartnell from their graves to recreate them.
Misplaced film stock happens. Particularly when - I suspect - one engineer decided to stash a copy in a spare room.
Re: (Score:3)
unless you're suggesting they raised Stanley Kubrick and William Hartnell from their graves to recreate them.
Oh, for sure, raising folks from the dead is something that the NSA & CIA do all the time using Roswell Alien Technology at Area 51.
Unfortunately, the technology hasn't been perfected yet, so the dead come back as zombies. The Zombie Kubrick appeared to show no interest in a Moon Landing Remake. When he was alive, he never made sequels to his films. Instead, he seemed to want to film a new work titled, "Brains!".
The Zombie Harnell ate the Best Boy on the set, and need to be put down with a shot to
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, when was Kubrick attached to the Hoax? My brief searching didn't find any references earlier than 2002, after Kubrick's death. Was his name attached to it before his death?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Kubrick yelled, "No more loser actors from shit-hole countries! They're all 4's!"
Re: Stuff like this makes even believers go "hmm" (Score:2)
Forgot is the wrong word. Everyone knew there were reels of extra footage that had been misplaced. Nobody thought of long-term history, back then, which is why the BBC destroyed their copy of the landings. They've been looking for further footage for a while.
But now cynics have to explain how Stanley Kubrick managed all this extra filming with the same actors at the same time, hours and hours of it, with all these extra sets, without anyone noticing.
Further, you'd still have to explain why the takes had bee
Re: Stuff like this makes even believers go "hmm" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody can repeat the Concorde either. Did the Concorde exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stuff like this makes even believers go "hmm" (Score:5, Interesting)
The 1990s. It had a few oddballs, but I liked the site back then. People were generally NICE. Friendly. Supportive.
We didn't need registration for a long time, people could be trusted to enter their own username. I only registered when it became mandatory, or I would have had a lower UID.
When "top secret" Scientology texts were published on Slashdot, almost all of us defended the poster's right to do so. There was no trolling or shaming, no modding out of sight because some power user didn't like it, no mass army of sock puppets drowning the discussion.
People from the NSA were offering interviews with Slashdot, such was the credibility of the site. They don't do that for just anyone.
Katz was getting interviews with a whole bunch of other folk in government, because Slashdot mattered and people here listened.
When I talked to CmdrTaco, readership was running at 100,000 a day, more than many national newspapers.
In those days, trolls were the ones who were silenced and conspiracy nutters were left out.
I think Perenz and I are the only two left of that generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are a few of us old-timers around. As the focus of the site has shifted over time, I don't visit as often, but I still drop in 2 or 3 times a week.
Re: (Score:3)
When things don't make sense, first check to see if what you think is sense actually is.
The Van Allen belts aren't a problem. NASA has never said otherwise.
You say blue screen, I say prove it.
Why should hair wave? Can you list the forces acting upon it?
The universe is not accountable for your lack of knowledge. If you don't understand, learn.
Re: Funny thing (Score:4, Funny)
Unfortunately for you, a working set of eyes does not equate to a working brain.
Re:Funny thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should physics have to be different. One side of the moon is silicates, one side is igneous. One side is partly sheltered from incoming meteorites, the other side isn't.
Re: Funny thing (Score:5, Insightful)
One's near side, one's far side. Different conditions. Very different.
One side has been blasted from space, the other has had very few impacts - might be due to a bloody great planet shielding it.
One is mostly igneous rock, one is mostly silicate.
Re: (Score:1)
While the ratio might be in favor towards 'shielding', the moon still looks very much the same on both sides.
Re: (Score:1)
One is mostly igneous rock, one is mostly silicate.
One is Fun Nudist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
One is Evil Helium 3 Whiffing Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I prefer the Nudist side, but that's a personal lifestyle choice that everyone can make for themselves, when we have to evacuate the Earth and all move to live on the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... LITERALLY...
The part of the Moon that faces us, faces us. It hasn't faced outer space in all of recorded human history, pre-history, etc.
The other side has ALWAYS been the backside pointing out into space.
If the near side of the Moon was getting hit with things, there'd be serious questions about where the fuck that stuff was coming from (yes, you might get the occasional glancing blow slip between the Earth and Moon, but to actually hit the Moon at speed, it means it came from us!
The front side of
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you refer to the far side of the moon to be "dark, cold" as opposed to the near side being "bright, warm"? I don't believe the earth warms the moon by any significant degree.
Re: (Score:2)
" Tiny meteoroids are hitting the moon each day and those "hits" never go away as there’s no such thing as wind."
The far side of the moon points to the universe.
Since the near side of the moon is always pointed towards us and has for a loooong time, most of the meteoroids would have to have come from earth.
But hey, why do I even try to discuss this with morons.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely true. I compared images and video made with 1960s technology to images and video from 50 years later and I noticed some differences too. Colors are washed out, and people were wearing these goofy pants that were much wider at the cuff. It doesn't make sense.
9 Mile High Crystal Towers? (Score:2)
Arrrg [Re:9 Mile High Crystal Towers?\ (Score:1)
There. Is. NO. "Dark Side". Of. The. Moon!
eSlaps.
Okay, technically there may be a few craters which never get sun at the poles, but that's not a "side".
The background music sucked (Score:3)
Whoever thought it was a good idea to have the treble on the drums turned up and blasting every second should be strapped to a chair in an anechoic chamber, fitted with headphones, and forced to listen to that music continuously for 24 hours.
That was shit music. If you're going to use drums for something like this, you use bass. On low.
P.S. the quote at the bottom: I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong
Re: (Score:2)
Treble was louder in the 60's. Global Basing has since dampened it. In 20 years we'll all sound like under-water mumbling.
Graphics aren't Chyron (Score:2)