Mission to Mars a must-see movie

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Mission to Mars -- a must see movie -- based on Richard Hoagland's "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever" -- Cydonia and the Pyramids. This movie is pissing off both creationists and evolutionists.

(take out any spaces after you paste the URL into your browser "go to/location" window)

Movie done with input from NASA. Dan Goldin, director of NASA, is going to promote a MANNED mission to Mars, hopefully within ten years, abandoning the "fast and cheap" unmanned mission strategy. (To find out what's happened with the unmanned missions, as in the movie, one manned mission goes to find out what happened to the first one.)

see also Hoagland's site:

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 15, 2000


One of the points, though, is that the director, de Palma, with the astronaut father and son dialog re reading a book "together" indicates that M2M was a SECRET mission (no "photo ops"). Supports Hoagland's thesis that NASA would like to have (and probably has had) SECRET missions, in the past. And that it is stunning that Goldin has had an apparent about-face. SOMETHING or SOMEONE is out there?

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 15, 2000.

Hoo, boy. Went to see this yawner on Monday. Great actors woodenly delivering third-rate dialogue amidst second-rate special effects. About as believable as, well, a Y2K apocalypse...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.


Warning--do NOT see this movie!

-- (grok@UFO.command), March 15, 2000.

Y2K Pro obviously was expecting an overacted girl movie? Be that as it may, I still recommend the movie, in spite of some quibbles I have with it, myself. It might help to have a little background, which is why I posted the links. Obviously Y2k pro doesn't have the background.

If you have the background, it will enhance your experience. This movie could be the crack in the dam, releasing suppression of information about where we really came from and the NASA obfuscations and "problems". (not that there are not inaccuracies in the movie.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 16, 2000.


Surely you jest. It appears from your comments that *you* need to brush up on your "background." Any sci-fi reader would recognize the plot was old 30 years ago. You seem to have trouble separating fact from fiction. Care to enlighten us with the "new" insights you've gleaned from this loser?

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 16, 2000.



-- Aunt Jo Mama (kiss.my.big@black.moon), March 16, 2000.

How could it piss off both camps? 'Splain?

-- Donna (moment@home.com), March 17, 2000.

A review by someone who gets it, instead of lightweight intellect detractors.


Explain about PO'ing both evolutioninsts and creationists? Well, probably the creationists moreso than the evolutionists, but ask me again after you've seen the movie.

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 17, 2000.

Grise -- yeah the "plot" is (about) 30 years old because that's how long NASA has been dragging its feet and that's how long ago Hoagland's first edition of "Monuments" was published, based on the original photos.

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 17, 2000.

Is 30 years a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey"? "2001" was a hit movie in 1968-69.

-- Tim (tkr27@yahoo.net), March 17, 2000.

Not directly, Tim. It is, however, a good example of a film that was revolutionary in its day for its technical aspects. Nowadays, there has to be more than just FX.

Come on, "A." I've seen M2M. It was disappointing. In what way is it a "break-out" film, in your opinion?

BTW, are you aware of the observation that the Face closely resembles the popular image of Jesus Christ?


-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

LBowGrise: The face (and the "alien") depicted in the movie was a source of disappointment. They made it look like what is called a "grey" (grise) in the Ufology community, instead of the more human appearance (with touches of ape and leonide) that the Mars photograph shows. But that's showbiz.

The photographs of Cydonia (including the face) were taken in 1976 (24 years ago) by Viking.

_I_ didn't gain any new insights from the movie. I'm glad that at least some of the material has been presented to the general public -- not that most will or can understand much. But that's true of the public about anything.

BTW -- Hoagland (www.enterprisemission.com) said on the Art Bell show (look on www.artbell.com for radio station listings) that the cost of the movie was about $120 million, and that the consensus is that it looks like a $60 million movie. So where did the other $60 million go? Also, there were two movie trailers -- one showing a face more like the one actually on Mars. Also, the original screening time was scheduled at 2 hours 45 minutes. The cut we see in the theaters is about 1 hour 50-55 minutes. Where did that other 50 minutes go and what was in it? Was that the extra $60 million? The director, De Palma, has not given any interviews since just before and since the release of the movie. Speculation he is pissed. Did NASA force a drastic cut/edit? Were there two versions shot? I sure would like to see the "director's cut".

So, unfortunately, you are right in a sense, it probably won't really shake up the public -- but I was glad to see SOMETHING. And the story of what's going on behind the scenes isn't over, yet.

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 17, 2000.

The present Mars orbiter will pass directly over Cydonia, Mars, on, I believe, March 22. It would be very simple to solve the controversy once and for all by simply CLICKING THE SHUTTER (taking some pictures), then releasing the UNALTERED pictures to the public.

But NASA, and their picture-taking SUBCONTRACTOR, a goof named Malin, are RESISTING doing this. (Or if they have taken, and are going to take some good pictures, they haven't released them. The ones taken a few months ago were a JOKE -- the shots released then were even LESS resolution shots than BACK in 1976.) Any guesses as to WHY?

Dan Goldin is director of NASA
e-mail: dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
fax: 202-358-2810

-- National (enquiring_minds@want.to.know), March 17, 2000.

why don't these go to top?

-- Z (z@zzz.top), March 17, 2000.


-- z (Z@zz.top), March 17, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ