Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Walk on the Moon in IMAX 3D

samzenpus posted about 9 years ago | from the the-eagle-has-landed dept.

Space 191

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."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I greatly enjoy buttsex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451108)

Mmm-mm good.

Boom boom (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451116)

Best bit is, they've already got the set from the faked moon landings in 1969!

Re:Boom boom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451132)

Best bit is, they've already got the set from the faked moon landings in 1969!

Prove it.

Thought so.

Re:Boom boom (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451187)

the FOX network aired a special about how the moon landings were faked. and since fox is "fair and balanced" then they must have only reported the facts....

Finally (0)

webby123 (911327) | about 9 years ago | (#13451117)

A chance to visit my moon base!!

Re:Finally (3, Funny)

beerman2k (521609) | about 9 years ago | (#13451313)

A chance to visit my moon base!!
Was that Moon Base Alpha? Or Moon Base Zappa?

Re:Finally (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 9 years ago | (#13451469)

Do you work here [google.com] ?

Spark that interest (5, Informative)

rob_squared (821479) | about 9 years ago | (#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]

Re:Spark that interest (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451237)

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.

Re:Spark that interest (1)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13451452)

You conveniently forget Pathfinder, possibly the most awe-inspiring NASA event in decades. The whole world was literally talking about it.

Re:Spark that interest (2, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451507)

The whole world talked about the Michael Jackson trial, too. And that dude that killed his pregnant wife. That's hardly an indicator of much.

And what's so awe-inspiring about it? We put men on the fricking moon almost 40 years ago. I'm supposed to be amazed that, in only FORTY years, we managed to stick a little machine on Mars?

Sure, it's cool. But hardly awe-inspiring.

Re:Spark that interest (5, Insightful)

utnow (808790) | about 9 years ago | (#13451641)

You're a classic example of today's modern, plugged in, brilliant, and utterly uninspired people.

It's difficult to fathom the fact that a collection of atoms formed together to produce you in such a fashion that you can create such a statement. Life is utterly amazing in that regard. We're having an argument. THAT is awe-inspiring.

How can the idea of having overcome so many obstacles, arguably way before our time, traveled such a distance, and achieved such a feat. The idea that there's a massive rock orbiting our tiny little planet is crazy as it is but that we were able to get people there is insane.

Now I think that our progress in getting people more than 365 times as far (mars versus the moon) has been rather astounding. We managed, on only our second shot, to hit a target as small as mars (technically we 'hit' it twice) from literally ~50 million miles away. We have photographs taken from the surface of a completely different planet.

You're amazingly desensitized by tv, media, movies, music, videogames... i dunno what.

Re:Spark that interest (2, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451727)

When you compare the two events, the long stretch of time between them - and the amazing advancements in everything else outside of actual space travel - it's not awe-inspiring. It's a piddly achievement in the scheme of things.

The only way we got to the moon in the first place was because Kennedy had the gonads to set an impossible goal WITH A DEFINITE TIME FRAME of one decade and rally the entire country behind it.

Do you seriously think if he had remained alive, he'd have said "wow, great job guys! Now our next goal is to land a little box on wheels on mars... and we have FOUR decades to do it". Hell no.

See, that's the difference. Some people think small and are satisfied with small steps. Others see where we should be. Where we could have been. And where we could go - if only we'd stop being so shocked at minor achievements.

And hell, didn't Bush say something about committment us to putting a person on Mars by 2020? And then what have we heard of it? Nothing? The "goal" doesn't have the drive behind it that the moon mission did almost 40 years ago. When 2020 comes and goes, nobody will even remember that we had a goal of getting to mars. In fact, I bet 75% of people right now don't know that we have a goal to reach mars by 2020 (or whenever that was).

It may be an amazing thing from an individual's viewpoint. For a set of people to accomplish what they've accomplished in the last few years. But as a country and a scientific community, I can't believe this is all we've managed in a life time.

And by the way - I think traveling from town to town over several days by horse in 1910 to landing men on the moon in 1969 is a FAR greater distance than anything between the moon in 1969 and whatever we've accomplished today.

Literally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451525)

Not only did we send a rover to Mars, we managed to make our own planet speak. Truly a momentous occasion.

Re:Spark that interest (1)

Mechcozmo (871146) | about 9 years ago | (#13452104)

Wikipedia has a nice article on this, as almost always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_h oax [wikipedia.org]

Oh, and ignore the neutrality warning. It's a great and interesting read (at least it was 5 minutes ago :-)

Another remake? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451125)

Didn't Hollywood already do this in 1969?

Re:Another remake? (0, Redundant)

Shky (703024) | about 9 years ago | (#13451138)

Repeating jokes from the summary but with slightly different wording makes for high-larity!

Re:Another remake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451173)

Dude, don't feed the trolls.

why don't they... (1)

muzik4machines (834892) | about 9 years ago | (#13451131)

shoot the movie on the atual moon, to get the 1/6 weight effect?

Lunar hoax (1)

lappy512 (853357) | about 9 years ago | (#13451134)

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

oh great... (0, Offtopic)

rwven (663186) | about 9 years ago | (#13451146)

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.

Re:oh great... (3, Funny)

KernelHappy (517524) | about 9 years ago | (#13451239)

Well the real question is, are they using the original set, or a new one. I heard that higher definition displays show lots of flaws in lower def sets.

I can't wait for Mars! (1)

keilinw (663210) | about 9 years ago | (#13451147)

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 talkikng about the Mars Hoax ;)

Matt Wong

Too Holywoody (1)

brohan (773443) | about 9 years ago | (#13451231)

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 weightlessness/semi-weightlessness. From what I've seen from these movies they cannot really compare. The 1/6th gravity will be difficult to simulate without using special effects.

This movie would be much better if there were people talking about going to the moon again and studying the moon.

Fake moon landing! (2, Funny)

deathwombat (848460) | about 9 years ago | (#13451150)

Now you too can fake your own moon landing from the comfort of your own home after seeing this movie!

Re:Fake moon landing! (0)

superpulpsicle (533373) | about 9 years ago | (#13451795)

First US moon landing has already been faked once on national TV. Read the "70 Greatest Conspiracies of all Time". The evidences in this book are overwhelming.

Where is it? (4, Funny)

z3r0w8 (664036) | about 9 years ago | (#13451152)

How come I keep looking for the MTV flag?

Re:Where is it? Ask Sting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451485)

> How come I keep looking for the MTV flag?

Good point! Makes me think that the theme song will be performed by The Police. :)

"Walking on, walking on the moooooon...."

Plate Tectonics (4, Interesting)

geomon (78680) | about 9 years ago | (#13451161)

"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 (4, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about 9 years ago | (#13451213)

I love conspiracy knotheads.

I love Buzz Aldrin's response to conspiracy knotheads [sptimes.com] .

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

geomon (78680) | about 9 years ago | (#13451260)

That was GREAT!! A 72-year-old astronaut puts a guy on his ass with one punch!

Thanks for the link.

Re:Plate Tectonics (2, Funny)

Alien Being (18488) | about 9 years ago | (#13451431)

If you watch that clip in super slow-motion, you can see Aldrin take a sliderule from his pocket and compute the optimum punch vector.

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

geomon (78680) | about 9 years ago | (#13451455)

Nicely done.

I almost did a spit-take. :)

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

NeuroManson (214835) | about 9 years ago | (#13451413)

What part of "Bang, zoom, to the moon!" didn't the conspiracy nutjob not understand?

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

Soong (7225) | about 9 years ago | (#13451275)

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.

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

geomon (78680) | about 9 years ago | (#13451305)

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.

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

daeley (126313) | about 9 years ago | (#13451880)

As far as we can acertain, other animals do not possess religiosity.

Thank God! ;)

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

scdeimos (632778) | about 9 years ago | (#13451316)

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! :)

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

geomon (78680) | about 9 years ago | (#13451330)

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 (5, Insightful)

jeffdsimpson (737989) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 9 years ago | (#13451462)

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 provide the biggest evidence (though the videos come damn close), but for a different reason.

It seems to me that it would be possible to pretty accurately triangulate the position of the spacecraft using Earthbound radio stations. And if it was, I have no doubt the Soviets were doing it. Which means that we would have had to at least either:

* Carry out most of the mission with unmanned probes transmitting a recording while the astronauts remained in Earth orbit undetected, or

* Send the astronauts around the moon and just not land them on it.

It seems that probably both of these options would be nearly as complicated as doing the mission as stated.

Re:Plate Tectonics (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 9 years ago | (#13451903)

First, I will point out that I believe we landed on the moon. But a guy I worked with is a definite tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and it was pretty fun to listen to the theories.

To understand them, you have to distrust everything the government says and look for ways that it could be faked.

So how would we do it?

First, the mission would have been entirely unmanned. Land a radio transmitter on the moon and that solves the problem. Communications from NASA are sent directly to the astronauts on earth in "real time." The astronauts send their replies to the moon which echoes them back, thus giving the appropriate time delays. Same thing with the Apollo spacecraft.

I'm not sure about the triangulation properties, but consider that the first missions didn't go very far from the LEM. I'm also not sure if the Lunar Rover actually broadcast back to Earth or whether it sent to the LEM and from there back to Earth. If it's the latter, sure--we landed a transmitter on the moon. But the broadcasts stayed in one place.

Again, NASA had landed on the moon before Apollo--the Surveyor [usra.edu] missions. So NASA did show it could land stuff on the moon.

It would be significantly easier to land a transmitter on the moon than it would be to land people there.

Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors.. (0)

Gopal.V (532678) | about 9 years ago | (#13451780)

On several Apollo missions, astronauts planted mirrors facing Earth. The mirror were useful for measuring the distance of the moon from the Earth ...

What is being debated is not whether USA actually sent a space-craft to moon. What is being debated is whether that space-craft actually had any human beings on board. It's been 3 decades since that that trip to Moon, but I still can't calculate any shielding plates which will be light enough for the rocket fuel mass of Apollo 13 (28,945 kg) and yet still protect 3 astronauts from the radiation belts around the earth.

What really scares me about these trips is not the fact that we went to the Moon, it's 30 years later and we don't seem to have the technology/money/motive to do a repeat performance. Either that or it was all a fake to one up on Soviet Union. After all Star Wars came out a few years later and proves all the faking techniques were in good form.

Funny how facts available to everyone can be ignored by people with an axe to grind.

And yes, I have an axe to grind. I well and truly believe that NASA sent up a space craft to the Moon - but it stretches my credulity a bit to believe that they sent 3 people on it. One day, I personally might visit Moon and see the Moon rover, those famous footprints or the rest of the lander module - but they are just not evidence enough for the presence of BigFoot or Neil Amstrong there.

Of course, you want to believe.. I don't blame you. If I was a patriotic american and this was proved to be a hoax (which would've need a decade of work to even properly hoax) would be a pathetic symbol of one-up-manship gone bad. I wouldn't want that - but don't blame me for being a Skeptic [wikipedia.org] .

That's what science taught me to do - challenge, question and understand.

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors.. (2, Interesting)

ZosX (517789) | about 9 years ago | (#13452125)

What about the nearly 900lbs or so of verifiable moon rocks they brought back? What of all the moon dust on the spacesuits? That stuff surely didn't come from earth.

Read the wikipedia article on the moon rocks. [wikipedia.org] It is a pretty interesting read.

About the van allen belts. The astronauts did indeed pass through and their experiences were interesting. One astronaut talks about closing his eyes and seeing the particles flash across his vision. It was determined that for the short period of time they would pass through, they would get minimal radiation. I suggest you actually read some of the facts about the belts and the amount of time that the astronauts spent in them.

For what its worth, I did watch the "documentary" on the moon being a fraud. It was called "We never went to the moon." It was a really good way to short circuit my reality for a day. The moon rocks themselves are pretty damning evidence along with the laser mirrors.

What's next? Will you be telling us that a navy ship disappeared from one port to reappear in another in a bizarre teleportation experiment?

Fake moon surface? (1, Redundant)

Cerdic (904049) | about 9 years ago | (#13451162)

...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!

Re:Fake moon surface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451679)

My post appeared a whole 7 minutes after the top +3 post I see. I checked for "fake landing" posts when I started writing my comment, but there was nothing there at the time. Lame to get modded down for that.

Re:Fake moon surface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451976)

and lame to bitch about it

Is this an ad? (0, Troll)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451166)

I am stumped. Is this an article or a movie ad?

Re:Is this an ad? (2, Insightful)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451512)

I am the big bad troll for asking if this is an article or an ad? I thought /. posted news for nerds. This seems to be just an ad for an IMAX movie.

What's next an article extolling the refreshing thirst quenching properties of new Coca-Cola Free?

Re:Is this an ad? (1, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | about 9 years ago | (#13451579)

"I am the big bad troll for asking if this is an article or an ad? I thought /. posted news for nerds. This seems to be just an ad for an IMAX movie."

So... you're interested in it if it's not an ad, but you aren't interested if it is an ad...?

Re:Is this an ad? (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451729)

So... you're interested in it if it's not an ad, but you aren't interested if it is an ad...?

ummm...it's boring both ways.

We are already inundated with ads in our everyday lives, this site is well regarded for its high signal to noise ratio. If the basis of the story is just an ad for a movie, then the whole topic starts off as noise.

Re:Is this an ad? (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | about 9 years ago | (#13451792)

When did Slashdot get a high signal to noise ratio?!

Anyway, nerds might like this movie, so it's information which nerds might like, so it's on point.

Re:Is this an ad? (2, Interesting)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | about 9 years ago | (#13451947)

When did Slashdot get a high signal to noise ratio?!

When they added moderation and filtering based on mod points. What fully open, popular and free site has a better S/N ratio?

Anyway, nerds might like this movie, so it's information which nerds might like, so it's on point.

Nerds like pr0n. Where's the pr0n articles?

Heh.... (0)

tktk (540564) | about 9 years ago | (#13451186)

this movie might be the first remake that's better than the original (hoax).

Hi Def Trailers (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 9 years ago | (#13451212)

Find the Hi-Def trailers here [apple.com]

Direct link to Hi Def Trailer (1080p) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451714)

Links to trailer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451789)

Doesn't look real... (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | about 9 years ago | (#13451218)

Seems like they're not using any wire work to simulate walking on the moon. Space Cowboys [popmatters.com] is more real than this. ;)

Re:Doesn't look real... (3, Interesting)

jpellino (202698) | about 9 years ago | (#13451515)

Hanks already used helium baloons to unweight the actors in "From The Earth To The Moon" - seeing how much it costs to film IMAX, this would be a cheap (as in dollars) trick.

Re:Doesn't look real... (1)

flyskin (884684) | about 9 years ago | (#13451946)

looking at the high definition [apple.com] trailer, it actually looks like kinda cheesy CG animation....I don't know if it's worth a trip to the theater

Didn't they do this already in 1969? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451248)

"Complete with actors playing astronauts, mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface, this looks to be a real kick."

Buzz punchout in 3-D (2, Funny)

convex_mirror (905839) | about 9 years ago | (#13451254)

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]

Does OJ star in it? (0, Offtopic)

stox (131684) | about 9 years ago | (#13451272)

There are some movies that should never be remade, Capricorn One is one of them.

Re:Does OJ star in it? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 9 years ago | (#13451443)

Juice is still too busy trying to find the real killers. Apparently a lot of shady types hang around on golf courses. And steal satellite TV.

        Brett

In addition (1)

HackingYodel (847061) | about 9 years ago | (#13451289)

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.

Awesome (1)

coffeisgood (910748) | about 9 years ago | (#13451294)

Sounds cool. When can we experience it? And prices?

the original? (1)

qzulla (600807) | about 9 years ago | (#13451339)

In Apollo 13 they didn't make it to the moon. So where is the remake?

qz

original (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451349)

They should save some money and use the original set!

Space Penguin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451354)

But will the astronuts be able to fight off a somewhat small robot? Stay tuned for the next episode: "Apollo 11 vs. Space Penguin!

Is it a trilogy? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451383)

Can't they just reuse the set from last time?

-----
All your lunar hoax conspiracy theorists are belong to us

No need for this... (2, Informative)

doxology (636469) | about 9 years ago | (#13451390)

Google's [google.com] got us covered.

For a more authentic look... (0, Redundant)

birge (866103) | about 9 years ago | (#13451396)

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.

Re:For a more authentic look... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451527)

Congrats! I am now gona stalk you. Every post you will have after this one will be replied:

'In Soviet Russia (subject of title) (verb in present tense) YOU!'

(the things in parenthesis will not be changed)

Have a nice day!

Re:For a more authentic look... (1)

birge (866103) | about 9 years ago | (#13451593)

Well the joke's on you, because that would be the most flattering thing that has ever happened to me. Don't you know ANYTHING about stalking? You have to choose somebody COOL to stalk. You can't stalk a dork for the same reason a woman can't rape a man.

Big Screen Gaming (1)

kahanamoku (470295) | about 9 years ago | (#13451407)

Forget Tom Hanks!
All they needed was to port the old classig 'Moon Patrol' to IMAX! 15 foot Pixels Yay!

Drive the R/C robot on the moon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451416)

They should make some r/c robots that people can navigate for some price say $100 per hour or something, and let people drive the things.

Only the coolest thing ever. (5, Funny)

Dr Tom Danger (621664) | about 9 years ago | (#13451427)

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.

Re:Only the coolest thing ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451692)

You failed to mention his drooling sidekick St. Bernard that supports him when he is held up at Immigration and can't get back into the US after struggling to save a good friend lost in the war, while trying to get his job back because he has AIDS and he just wishes he was bigger, because he suspects his next door neighbours are murderers.

But we don't want to give too much away, do we?

Re:Only the coolest thing ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451773)

Wilson!??@#
WILSON!@#!#

all fake. (0, Troll)

leckmi (911151) | about 9 years ago | (#13451451)

there is no such thing as space or outer space. the earth is a single planet surrounded by a everchanging unformy mirror in form of gas. this leaves the impression of an endless space. theres is also no moon. its just a lamp above the earth.

"If we can send a man to the moon..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451481)

Um, we can't anymore.

/Sting (3, Funny)

OneArmedMan (606657) | about 9 years ago | (#13451532)

Giant Steps

Are, what, you, take ..

walking on the moon...

I like Tom Hanks and all, but... (5, Funny)

fractalrock (662410) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:I like Tom Hanks and all, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451750)

He is very interested in space. He is one of the celebrities who paid the company to buy a piece of property on the moon, and many other crazy things like that relating to space.

This Movie Is A Hoax! (4, Funny)

Rob Carr (780861) | about 9 years ago | (#13451544)

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.

It's going to screw up the facts in people's minds (2, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about 9 years ago | (#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

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi (2, Interesting)

RabidMonkey (30447) | about 9 years ago | (#13451651)

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 (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 9 years ago | (#13451874)

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 when they suggest that you are going to be able to feel what the astronauts who actually went there as part of your "IMax Experience(tm)".

Maybe I'm just being a downer, and if you asked a bunch of random 20-something year olds to "name someone from the Apollo 13 mission", they'd actually say "Lovell" or "Haise" or "Swigert", instead of the majority of them saying "Tom Hanks".

But I doubt it. 8-(.

-- Terry

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi (2, Interesting)

MrAndrews (456547) | about 9 years ago | (#13451786)

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.

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13451996)

Maybe they got those figures directly from NASA. We all know how well they handle metric units.

3D (2, Interesting)

Shippy (123643) | about 9 years ago | (#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 (2, Interesting)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 9 years ago | (#13451945)

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 depth so the 3D works very well. Of course this was with relatively basic computer graphics so I've no idea how more complex scenes would work but I'd be interested in seeing when it comes out.

Re:3D (5, Informative)

sinewalker (686056) | about 9 years ago | (#13451963)

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!

Re:3D (1)

sinewalker (686056) | about 9 years ago | (#13452012)

Sorry, shouldn't reply to my own post I know, but I just re-read this and thought "Duh!"

Focal length

I think that because the images are on both on a big screen which is fairly far away, and you also have no trouble driving without the need for corrective lenses, then you will be fine, since it seems the difference in focus for your eyes is only going to be an issue for something close to them (as in, something you are holding like a 3D commic). In the IMAX theater, some things can appear close, but they are still focused at the screen by the projectors, so it should be fine.

Anyway, your eyes each get their own image, so it's not like you need to do anything unusual to see like a random-dot stereogramme.

It's not Shockwave (2, Informative)

jerw134 (409531) | about 9 years ago | (#13451659)

It's Flash. They're both made by the same company, but they're two completely different things.

Smart-1 and the Conspiracy (2, Interesting)

biraneto2 (910162) | about 9 years ago | (#13451907)

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.

Let me get this straight... (1)

armondf (743161) | about 9 years ago | (#13451915)

They're using old photos, fake astronauts and a fake moon to give the viewers a real view of the moon?

Lunar hoax (1)

cz_eye (911763) | about 9 years ago | (#13452097)

Sadly this theory actually works for many ppl and is able to deceive many of them. They are if not convinced then they are at least suspicious about whole moon landing.

My mom for example will never ever be sure that the landing was genuine and was kinda confused when she first heard of the hoax and she didnt know what to think, her confidence in NASA, U.S. and mankind as a whole is very undermined since.

People spreading these lyes and getting rich doing this kind of stuff are rough traitors, they undermining our society, and they sold out America. Aldrin did have punched them in public, and he did the right thing, even if it looked like big "over-reaction" but it was the right answer.

interesting (1)

theheff (894014) | about 9 years ago | (#13452118)

Maybe they'll add the stars into the remake. It's also interesting how they'll make 1960s film into a 3D imax movie. Perhaps this more in-depth look at the moon landing will reveal what all conspirists already know to be true... the moon is undoubtedly made of cheese.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>