Talk:Apollo 18 (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:15, 31 December 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film Stub‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:Banner/ Filmfilm articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Science Fiction Unassessed

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:Banner/ Science Fictionscience fiction articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Horror Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:Banner/ Horrorhorror articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Fictional mission?

I know there's not a lot of info on the movie yet, but the article's plot description says, "A film about the fictional mission to space in the 1970s that was canceled by NASA." but the link in the section does not detail a canceled mission called Apollo 18, and in fact there was actually an Apollo 18 mission, more officially called "Apollo–Soyuz Test Project^[1]" that was the last Apollo mission, which, from the movie's website^[2], seems to be what the movie is about based on the liner at the top (albeit a fictionalized account of what happened). 75.121.148.126 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 18 was a canceled lunar mission, not ASTP. I recommend reading up on the canceled Apollo missions.--Craigboy (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASTP didn't get an official Apollo number, but it was referred to by some at the time (in the news media, for instance) as Apollo 18. That said, the claims of the movie team that this would be "a found true document" are ludicrous of course. It sounds like a really cheap thriller.Strausszek (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

"...began to kill them off one by one." One by one? There's only two people in the lunar lander.

Yeah this should be exciting. "Oh No! Bob is dead!" 5 feet away in the very cramped cockpit, "GAAAAAHHH. gurgle gurgle, i'm dead too!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.15.98 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beware! The Blob :D Strausszek (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction...horror?

Based on the trailer this film is not just science fiction, it is definitely also horror. I vote we add this to the page. DanielDPeterson (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

Honestly from what I read this looks like nothing more than "The Blair Witch Project" On the moon. - Dartpaw86 (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86[reply]

With more fixed cameras it's more like Paranormal Activity... on the moon. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a more appropriate title would be "Paranormal Activity -- IN SPAAACE!!!"

Ahem.

Anyway, the speculative section regarding the movie as a failure before its release seems premature. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to make idle speculation on the future. Therefore, I am removing this section. Jparenti (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section premature?

Per the comment above this and due to a conversation elsewhere about another aspect of the article, I'm wondering if the Reception section isn't premature. I don't work on reception sections from scratch very often though so I wasn't sure and wanted to find out what others thought. I saw earlier that rotten tomatoes was up to 19 or so reviews. Is that enough for us to start pulling in individual reviews? I recall seeing other films wait on adding their reception sections until RT and Metacritic had a number of reviews up but I don't recall the specifics (neither films, nor number of reviews). Should we blank the section until there's more info? Start adding the reviews and refs? Let it ride because it will only be a few days before we have enough to flesh it out? I'm honestly not sure since I'm usually just a "fix the borked text" type. Millahnna (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should wait to call something negative when only 20 (only 4 top critic reviews) reviews have come in. I think editors just rush to call a film negative/positive on opening day here even when the Rotten score/Metascore will change during the following week. There's no point in rushing into something like this (especially when the film was not screened in advance). Those 4 reviews from the top critics could be added into the article though (which are all negative). Also some from Metacritic —Mike Allen 01:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this and think it is rather premature. Should at least wait for the weekend results - not that most people will be spending the closing summer holiday in the theatres. Srobak (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing another reception related project later today so I will try to start dropping a review or two in on this film, too. Since folks keep dropping in the RT score with no consensus yet, we should at least have some reviews in there for reference. The other project is going to be a bit time consuming because the film has fewer reviews and no consensus after three years (so I have to go digging) so someone, please please pretty please, feel free to beat me to it. Millahnna (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the director not have an article?

Eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.170.173 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because his previous works are foreign-language. It might be an obstacle for English-language editors in putting together a biographical article about him. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a "mockumentary", though?

Seems like a kind of misuse of that term. --109.189.99.41 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mockumentary says it can be dramatic or comedic, but to my mind it certainly seems that the term is usually used to refer to parodies. On Wikipedia, however, look at List_of_mockumentaries#Film and List_of_mockumentaries#Film_2. It fits well in the latter category. Looking at that page's entry for The Blair Witch Project, I wonder if this film also is a better fit for Found footage (genre), and indeed it is listed there. This article says "The film is shot in a mockumentary found-footage style" and since neither claim is sourced I'd be inclined to drop "mockumentary" there and avoid the issue until sources are adduced to argue eitehr way on the matter. JJL (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fake documentary, that's what a Mockumentary is, this film is a fake documentary, this film is a Mockumentary. 24.60.143.195 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Errors

I don't know if this is of any import, but there's one element that has frustrated me so far; they seem to have a live two way communication with Houston. There is a significant delay in radio comms from the moon to earth. Just thought I'd add that. 124.179.80.232 (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it only about a 3-second delay? I thought they were reasonably realistic about that. JJL (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 seconds. --uKER (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that they managed to hear noises outside when there is no air on the moon.TheOwlWBU talk 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film is supposed to be edited together from "found" footage. You can easily pretend that any delays could have been edited out.

As for hearing noises on the moon while in the lander, if something hits the lander outside, wouldn't they hear it inside? In any event, just pretend. It's all fun.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo-Soyuz_Test_Project

[2] ttp://www.apollo18movie.net/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ::1.3 seconds. --[[User:UKER|uKER]] ([[User talk:UKER|talk]]) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 :My problem is that they managed to hear noises outside when there is no air on the moon.[[User:TheOwlWBU|TheOwlWBU]] [[User talk:TheOwlWBU|talk]] 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
+The film is supposed to be edited together from "found" footage.  You can easily pretend that any delays could have been edited out.
+As for hearing noises on the moon while in the lander, if something hits the lander outside, wouldn't they hear it inside?  In any event, just pretend.  It's all fun.