Talk:Apollo 18 (film)

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" that was the last Apollo mission, which, from the movie's website, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Tame, moon mites arent my idea of a horrific plague, the human race is.--Murriemir (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The talk section of Wikipedia articles is not for you to express your opinion on the subject matter, but to address the article covering it. This is not a forum. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1.3 seconds. --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.TheOwlWBU talk 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Noise travels through rock and steel, too. 68.44.132.25 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2013 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.2.203 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Russians avoided the moon

Susposedly the Russians avoided the moon due to very high detected radioactive levels. The reason they never went was because it seemed too impractical and according to their data a man could not survive on the surface for greater than 20 minutes. Little is known whether or not this is the Russian position, but the claim has made it's way into lunar landing hoax theory.

The eal Apollo 18, acording to NASA, linked up with Russian Soyuz 19 on July 17, 1975. 169.253.194.1 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets didn't avoid the Moon, they avoided building a booster that wouldn't blow itself to hell every time it (briefly) flew.--172.190.176.51 (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kodachrome & shooting time

One character is stating they're shooting on Kodachrome, and their cameras look like they're based on the Super8 Nizos that were used by the actual Apollo mission crews, but only about 10% of film footage shots look like they're really made on Kodachrome (the rest looks like 16mm Ektachrome64T). The actual production time of the movie might be notable in this context (it's still missing from the Production section), as Kodachrome processing was still available until 31 December 2010. So is this the other last commercial film produced partly on Kodachrome next to Spielberg's Super 8? --79.193.33.246 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Free fall text

Text was :

Anderson launches, but the DoD warns Grey that Anderson is infected and orders him to abort the rescue or communication will be ceased, rendering Grey unable to return to Earth. As the lander enters orbit, the reduced gravity causes small rocks within the craft to float, some of which reveal themselves to be alien creatures.

--- I changed this to :

Anderson launches, but the DoD warns Grey that Anderson is infected and orders him to abort the rescue or communication will be cut off, without which the CSM will be unable to return to Earth. The lander's engines shut off as it enters orbit, and it is in free fall. Small rocks within the craft float in the air, some of which reveal themselves to be alien creatures.

Darkwarriorblake keeps reverting it, with no edit comments, so I don't know what his problem is.

The errors I corrected are 1) "will be ceased" is bad grammar.
2) "reduced gravity" is bad science. Ben just before that says "Engine cutoff. I am in orbit." With the engine stopping, acceleration has ceased (not "has been ceased") and thus the module is in free fall. Gravity has not "reduced". 202.81.242.216 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Same old text was put back with no explanation. So I fixed it again. Stuff like this is why I hardly bother editing any more. 202.81.249.139 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

American Film?

How is this an American film?

Shot in Canada, by a Russian Production Company, written, edited, and directed by Spaniards and Kazakhstanians, and staring British and Canadian actors. Seriously, an American distribution company qualifies this as an American film?

Iron Sky was distrubuted by Disney, but is still regarded as a Finnish/German/Australian film, because it was produced by a Finnish company, and shot in Germany and Australia. How is this different?

This is a Russian/Canadian film! 70.74.191.229 (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Yes thankyou 70.74.191.229 , your right so I have corrected the issue to make it a Russian-Canadian film. --Warner REBORN (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Trivia section--all WP:OR

I deleted a long trivia section, that contained a bunch of critiques of "factual errors" noticed by an editor. These are not allowed as WP:OR, you can only cite WP:RS reviews critiquing the film, not make our own conclusions. And in particular, IMDB "goofs" are certainly not a reliable source -- these can be submitted by any, unknown person. 202.81.249.179 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)