Apollo 18 Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

This movie looks interesting so I'm hoping someone will see it and discuss it.


I want to know one thing: will it affect those of us who get motion-sick at movies? Is it gonna be another "Paranormal Activity" or "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield"?


If it's pretty steady, I can go. If it's like those, I gotta wait for the BD!

 

[TravisR]

I want to know one thing: will it affect those of us who get motion-sick at movies? Is it gonna be another "Paranormal Activity" or "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield"?

It looks pretty motion sick-y to me but I'd guess it's probably not on a Blair Witch level. I'm going to see it sometime this weekend and I'll be sure to sit in the back of the theater (that helps curb the motion sickness for me).

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/314420/apollo-18-discussion-thread#post_3846520

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's a "found footage" movie like Blair Witch, but they're emulating the cameras used by the later Apollo missions, so only some of the camcorders are handheld shaky footage. I liked it better than a lot of critics did, but it's not a spectacular movie. Overall lesson: Stay the fuck out of space

Spoiler: Warning: Spoils cause of paranormal activities at heart of movie!

because rock spiders will infect your body, and ultimately consume you alive.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So Adam. do you think it'd be okay for someone who gets queasy at "found footage" movies to watch? I do want to see it, but I don't want to have to close my eyes half the time to avoid getting oogie.


BTW, other super-shakycam movies like "Battle: LA" and anything directed by Paul Greengrass get to me as well...

 

[SilverWook]

I saw it tonight. Does that make me the second guinea pig? The amount of really shaky cam is fairly minor and I didn't feel any ill effects. It's nowhere near the amount of camera shake Blair Witch had. It's got some good old fashioned "boo!" scares that will probably seem lame to the "Saw" crowd. A tiny bit of gore towards the end, but nothing that is going to make you toss your cookies. Ever since I saw "Countdown" with James Caan many years ago, I've found the idea of dead cosmonauts on the moon fascinating and really creepy. Lots of Apollo hardware to drool over, and I think even the Russian hardware is based on their cancelled Lunar lander. If you're even a casual real life space buff, it's hard to believe an unscheduled "unmanned" Saturn V launch would go completely under the radar of the public, whatever the cover story. The last real life Apollo V launch in 1973 actually was unmanned though, putting Skylab into orbit. I was living near the Cape in Florida at the time, but I was pretty young, and all the launches I saw sort of mush together in my memory now... I found the more fascinating from a technical point of view, and look forward to finding out if they really shot segments on 16mm or digital. Film breaks, deep emulsion scratches, and hairs stuck in the gate are something you don't see for real at the movies much anymore.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

If nobody survives, how the hell did they get the 16mm film back to earth?

 

[TravisR]

I saw it this morning and, like everyone else has said, it's not a shaky cam movie. As for the movie, I didn't care for it. It wasn't terrible but it felt too long (and it was only about 75 minutes of screen time) and it had way too many LOUD NOISE scares.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So Adam. do you think it'd be okay for someone who gets queasy at "found footage" movies to watch? I do want to see it, but I don't want to have to close my eyes half the time to avoid getting oogie.


BTW, other super-shakycam movies like "Battle: LA" and anything directed by Paul Greengrass get to me as well...

It's definitely not as bady as a Greengrass picture. That being said, I don't suffer from the shakycam nausea, so I don't know what the cut off is to set it off. Most of the film takes place in zero-g or low-g environments, so a number of shots play with perspective. There's also a couple strobe light scenes, in case that bothers anybody.

I found the more fascinating from a technical point of view, and look forward to finding out if they really shot segments on 16mm or digital. Film breaks, deep emulsion scratches, and hairs stuck in the gate are something you don't see for real at the movies much anymore.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

If nobody survives, how the hell did they get the 16mm film back to earth?

I saw it on a screen with Sony 4K projection. It looked to me like they were using photo filters to emulate the different film and video types. The grain looked printed over to me, rather than an inherent part of the image. RE: Spoiler:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I was wondering the same thing. I figured he'd pass over the film using the robotic arm once he realized he was screwed. But nope, let's kill everybody. Maybe the box of footage was found in the wreckage somewhere in the ocean.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Thanks for the various shaky-related comments, guys. Sounds like it's pretty safe for me to see. I won't blame anyone if I DO get oogie, though!

 

[SilverWook]

I saw it this morning and, like everyone else has said, it's not a shaky cam movie. As for the movie, I didn't care for it. It wasn't terrible but it felt too long (and it was only about 75 minutes of screen time) and it had way too many LOUD NOISE scares.

I thought it was a bit shorter than listed running time. It was a great premise, and it's a pity they fell back on some old cliques in the end. The potential was there for a really scary movie. I liked the period songs on the soundtrack though. It was interesting the cast credits don't come up until the point most people are out the door. I've tried going to website listed in the credits, (lunartruth.com) but it's either overloaded or down.