Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Apollo 18 Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1 of 10 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,249 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted September 02 2011 - 01:10 AM

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!


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#2 of 10 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,173 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 02 2011 - 01:21 AM

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).

#3 of 10 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,249 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted September 02 2011 - 01:49 AM



Originally Posted by TravisR 



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).


Yeah, it definitely has that "motion-sick" look about it.  Report back! when you see it Posted Image



Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#4 of 10 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 14,288 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted September 02 2011 - 03:01 PM

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.[/SPOILER]

#5 of 10 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,249 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted September 02 2011 - 03:04 PM

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...


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#6 of 10 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter



  • 1,527 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted September 03 2011 - 08:15 PM

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?[/SPOILER]

#7 of 10 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,173 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 04 2011 - 09:39 AM

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.

#8 of 10 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 14,288 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted September 04 2011 - 09:55 AM

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?[/SPOILER]

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.[/SPOILER]

#9 of 10 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,249 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted September 04 2011 - 01:18 PM

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! Posted Image


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#10 of 10 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter



  • 1,527 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted September 04 2011 - 04:32 PM

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.