It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Should Have No Involvement In Any Science Fiction Movie

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
A member recently claimed that NASA assisting Stanley Kubrick with technical details for his classic film "2001: A Space Odyssey" was (somehow) proof that Project Apollo was a massive hoax. Part of his reasoning was that "NASA should have no involvement in any science fiction movie." I am curious as to whether people consider this a reasonable constraint. Here is my reasoning against:

1) Part of NASA's mission is to educate the public. By assisting film-makers in portraying space and spaceflight accurately, it is educating the public.

2) Because NASA's funding is dependent on Congress, which, in turn, reflects the mood of the electorate, by keeping spaceflight in the public eye, it generates goodwill that can keep the funds flowing.

3) Science fiction can inspire the younger generation to study science which will eventually improve humanity's material well-being. NASA's investing in this is a public service.

4) Science fiction can inspire a positive vision of humanity's future, which makes NASA's involvement a "spiritual good deed."

Any thoughts?




posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Let me get the ball rolling by suggesting a few counter arguments:

1) Involvement by a government agency in the entertainment field is propaganda.

2) NASA has limited resources; it should not waste them frivolously.

3) Movies are passive forms of entertainment and have no genuine educational value.

(There's a reason I put it in this forum.)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001 If said member thinks that is proof he needs his head testing, I agree with you having a person from NASA in a consultant based job in order to make sure their film is scientifically accurate helps to educate the public. It is no proof of any hoax



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

1 : NASA can be a good resource for scientific fact and research for the entertainment industry.

2: That industry can pay them as consultants and help NASA with funding.

3: Science fiction interests younger people who grow up to learn science fact(hopefully).



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

1 ) Agreed , I think a film that portrays an accurate recreation of space or planetary conditions is educational rather than fantasy based conditions seen in films like Star Wars or TV like Star Trek.

2 ) The more cash that flows toward NASA can only be a good thing , how much further forward would we be if some of that Black Budget money was brought into the light and used for the good of mankind.

3 ) Agreed.

4 ) Not sure it's a good deed more them being asked by a film maker who wants to accurately portray a place they know a lot about.

In a time where movies tell people they can anything CGI can create I think it's good more intelligent film makers go the extra mile for accuracy , just a shame there isn't more of that.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

In defense of Star Trek, their presentation of space travel was intentionally stylized. Not only did they lack the special effects capabilities afforded by modern CGI, but their focus was on the human story, with special effects often being used as nothing more than "act breaks." It was their examination of the impact of science and technology on society and the individual that made it science fiction, not its scientific accuracy. (It would not have had the same impact if every episode ended with Kirk and the gang laughing as they lay down in their cryogenic freezers!)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seiko
a reply to: DJW001

1 : NASA can be a good resource for scientific fact and research for the entertainment industry.

2: That industry can pay them as consultants and help NASA with funding.

3: Science fiction interests younger people who grow up to learn science fact(hopefully).


Agreed. Everything she (?) said. And it strongly contributes to people wanting to learn more about science and the possibilities of the undiscovered.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm a Star Trek fan but do think some peoples idea of space and other creatures that may exist out there have been shaped by it and others like it , the Galactic Federation of Light is likely sourced from there , how many times have you seen someone on here mention the prime directive as if it's a real thing ?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Why would this be any different than government personnell assisting with details of the movie about "Seal Team Six" and the supposed murder of OBL?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
If you paid attention to the cooperation between NASA and the film industry you would discover that NASA gets some of its ideas FROM them. It's not a one-way street. For example, in "The Martian" the film and NASA cooperated on the space suits and the rover design. NASA's Mars Rover concept is a clunky, bulky thing where the movie rendition is much sleeker and has some design elements that make more sense. So NASA is taking another look at their Rover with the view of making theirs more like the movie's. The same is true of the spacesuits. When the movie asked NASA what they should look like, NASA told the movie, "Make 'em the way you want. We get our ideas from you guys anyway."

And, if you're going to get shots from inside the Johnson Space Center, you're gong to need NASA's cooperation.

I know this is ATS so we have to deal with this "NASA didn't really go to the Moon" crapola, but the idea that NASA should not cooperate has no real foundation. It's a good thing. The movies are richer and more realistic because of it, and they should definitely keep doing it. Making this an issue is much ado about nothing. There are a lot more important things to worry about. I support NASA cooperation 100%.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

if i thought it would do any good - i would ask apollo hoax believers to apply the same standerds of " logic " that they use for NASA support of movies - and apply thier " ideas " to the DOD policies on support of movies

purely as a rhetorical excercise to see how has the HBers can pull a " brave sir robin "



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Filmmakers don't need NASA's cooperation on science fiction films any more than they need the Pentagon's cooperation on war movies. When he started on "2001," Kubrick had just finished Dr. Strangelove, a vicious satire set on airbases, in bombers, and even in "The War Room." (This may be another reason NASA was so eager to cooperate: to keep an eye on things!)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: DJW001

Why would this be any different than government personnell assisting with details of the movie about "Seal Team Six" and the supposed murder of OBL?


To the best of my knowledge, no-one has tried to prove Osama bin Laden was not really killed because the Pentagon advised the makers of "Seal Team Six!"



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
they've become a political PR department






posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Ostracized


they've become a political PR department


That's a separate issue. All government agencies are politicized.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: schuyler

Filmmakers don't need NASA's cooperation on science fiction films any more than they need the Pentagon's cooperation on war movies. When he started on "2001," Kubrick had just finished Dr. Strangelove, a vicious satire set on airbases, in bombers, and even in "The War Room." (This may be another reason NASA was so eager to cooperate: to keep an eye on things!)


I don't need to read your posts either. Filmakers seek NASA's cooperation--or they don't. It's not required. If they do, they may avoid some blunders. "The Martian" gets very high ranks on being scientifically accurate. The only thing it really flubbed up on was the wind storm. On Mars it would not have been anywhere near as severe because the atmosphere is 1% as dense as Earth's, so that whole scene fails. They also didn't do the gravity right, but this was intentional. Every other issue in the film is scientifically accurate. That is a result of both the author and Ridley Scott cooperating with NASA. In other words, the film is realistic. We can do it: Now. With what we already know and with our present capabilities. I see absolutely nothing wrong with NASA promoting the idea. That's a good thing.

Cooperation with NASA made a better film. I'm glad they did it. I hope they do it again. Thank you for your opinion, but I believe it is a minority opinion and will not affect whether NASA cooperates with filmmakers in the future--fortunately.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Not much different than using a carrier to assist in a Top Gun movie or it's upcoming sequel.


it's probably before your time, even mine, but the original golden age Of S.F., mainly pulps, were almost exclusively written by 'scientists' , at least, scientifically trained. Many worked at NASA, in the day.


Totally for the use of any source that makes a film more realistic.


edit on 31-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: grammar



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I agree that NASA shouldn't be providing consulting services to private ventures because they are taxpayer funded public servants.

Even if they were provided payment for said services, they are necessarily not performing their mission.

NASA should just go dark and focus on military applications and leave space exploration to the private sector.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

It is clear you don't read my posts: you a re agreeing with me.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
NAZA is evil & shouldn't be involved in anything!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join