How Space Movies Evolved Over 120 Years | Movies Insider
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2021
- When making movies set in space, filmmakers have had to get creative portraying elements such as zero gravity, space travel, and the surface of the moon. Directors have tried to portray outer space going all the way back to 1902's “A Trip to the Moon.” 1950's “Destination Moon,” used wires to lift actors off the ground, a technique still used to this day. “2001: A Space Odyssey” broke new ground when Stanley Kubrick and the crew built a centrifuge and a camera rig to better capture ship movements. On “Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope,” George Lucas took space fights to the next level using motion-control cameras. Then, in 1995, “Apollo 13” found the most realistic way to recreate zero gravity was to film Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton in an actual weightless environment. In the 21st century, movies like “Gravity,” “First Man,” and “The Midnight Sky” have used groundbreaking CGI and LED projection to make weightless movement and the light of outer space feel more realistic than ever before.
Check out more of Framestore’s work here:
www.framestore.com/
/ framestoreofficial
Check out more of DNEG’s work here:
dneg.com/
/ @dnegvfx
MORE MOVIES INSIDER VIDEOS:
How 'Fast & Furious 9' Pulled Off 7 Extreme Stunts With Real Cars | Movies Insider
• How 'Fast & Furious 9'...
How Sound Is Used To Create Suspense In Horror Movies | Movies Insider
• How Sound Is Used To C...
How Queer Characters Have Evolved In Children's Animation | Movies Insider
• How Queer Characters H...
------------------------------------------------------
#SpaceMovies #CGI #Insider
Insider is great journalism about what passionate people actually want to know. That’s everything from news to food, celebrity to science, politics to sports and all the rest. It’s smart. It’s fearless. It’s fun. We push the boundaries of digital storytelling. Our mission is to inform and inspire.
Subscribe to our channel and visit us at: www.insider.com
Insider on Facebook: / insider
Insider on Instagram: / insider
Insider on Twitter: / thisisinsider
Insider on Snapchat: / 4020934530
Insider on Amazon Prime: www.amazon.com/v/thisisinsider
Insider on TikTok: / insider
Insider on Dailymotion: www.dailymotion.com/INSIDER
How Space Movies Evolved Over 120 Years | Movies Insider - Фільми й анімація
I could hear the joy in her tone as she delivered her punny last line.
2001: a space oddisey holds up incredibly well for being a movie that's more than 50 years old
Kubrick was a genius. I can only imagine how much effort it took to create that movie. And it lands with more interesting ground if you'll read Arthur Clark's novel as well. Both provide different points of view to events that happen in the story.
And from technical standpoint, even over 50 years old, this movie is still a masterpiece. No wonder some people thought that moon landing was faked by Kubrick.
2001 outshines today’s CG spectacles because the shots don’t call attention to themselves. Today everything is a wild, gyroscopic, carnival ride through the environment, rather than a subtle narrative statement.
I remember seeing this movie for the first time when I was young and not pretty understanding why the people made such a big deal of the visual effects, and then I was told the movie was done in 1968 and I was like: whaaaat!!! 🤯🤯🤯🤯.
I really thought it was made in the 90s
😂😂😂
@@carmengomez3748 Yeah, it's insane.
She do be living in the future
4:56 That's actually a CGI scene that was only later added, in the 21st century
Close. That scene was added in the Star Wars special edition, but it was still 20th century. The special edition theatrical rerelease was set to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Star Wars in 1997.
Still, it wasn’t seen in the theater at the first release like the video describes.
Oh yeah star wars
thank god i'm not the only who noticed that.
I love these videos because they make me think about how movies are made, and it's amazing the technological/film advances made to make stuff like this possible!
When they are faking stuff it helps to have high quality video...CGI.
In future you don't even need actors, directors or cinematographers. It will be all CGI !!!
@@IceManLikeGervin i dont understand your comment
@@raoulduke7668 NASA fakes, manipulates a lot of their so called space videos using CGI...
@@IceManLikeGervin yeah but they never claim those pictures to be real. They upload real photographs, composites and also renderings based on scientific data. They always state the method when uploading the picture - so whats ur point here?
Seeing those films one after another made me realize just how groundbreaking Star Wars really was. I mean, I knew it pushed boundaries, but I had no idea it looked that much better than films that came right before it.
Pretty much Silent Running was the immediate predecessor to Star Wars. And while less ambitious, it is just as visually stunning in many ways.
6:53 "they move really quickly because there is no air resistance". That 's a wrong assumption, in a vacuum there is no air resistance, clearly since you're seeing the astronauts there breathing and being alive there means there is air and thus also air resistance. It's the absence of gravity that makes them move with less resistance.
Yes, that was a bizarre statement.
Yep
air resistance not water resistance
He's probably talking about EVA. Not like he would know what kind of clip Insider would used for his line.
I assume he meant to say there is less drag acting on the astronaut in air compared to in water
Can't believe they didn't cover The Expanse, which puts so much work into being scientifically accurate about space scenes.
Instead they covered "gravity" which put a lot of work into being as scientifically INACCURATE as possible. Gravity is not an example of space movies done well, they got pretty much every single piece of the physics wrong, not to mention completely messing up how astronauts are selected and trained. It really was one of the worst movies I've ever endured.
@@Green__one Excuse me? Its not the physics that are done wrong, not in the least. The only thing that's wrong is SETTING. Where ISS happens to be in relation to where the Explorer was, and subsequently Tiengong. That is not a physics fail. You would be well served to learn the difference.
You can dislike the plot all you want, it isn't even a movie where plot is the important part. But don't conflate the issues. Know WHAT you are complaining about, and WHY. Consistency and objectivity are not to be thrown out based solely on personal enjoyment.
Meanwhile, The Expanse gets MANY things wrong. You just forgive it more often because you enjoy what you are watching.
@@k1productions87 so you either didn't watch it or don't understand physics.
@@Green__one I have watched it several times in fact. And I know which scene you are talking about specifically too. The straps were never fully taught, and if you WATCH, their motion is never fully arrested. It was merely exaggerated for audience comprehension, nothing more.
The seat of the pants maneuver in Apollo 13 was more damnable than that, as it showed them burning in the completely wrong direction. But nobody is going to point that one out, no doubt
@@k1productions87 So you think the space debris hitting the shuttle was accrately pictured? Or the trajectory of Sandra spinning out after being detached from the arm?
Anyone else LOL when she mentioned the Dykstraflex camera in Star Wars, stating that models could each be filmed independently, but the scene shown is Special Edition CGI?
I know! That makes me mad, too! All the shots they showed were from the Special Edition CGI redos.
I noticed that too
timestamp
This is why we have to be more vigilant about all types of attempts to “rewrite history”, because it doesn’t take more than a few years before people start referencing the revisionism as if it was historically accurate. In other words, don’t be surprised when your kid nonchalantly mentions how Jan 6th was just as profound as 9/11.
@@I_AM_HYDRAA 4:51
Interstellar has the realest scenes of all time in space movies
I recommend you THE EXPANSE. It feels real too and has a good futuristic point of view
The Expanse is fantastic, but interstellar blows everything away in terms of realism + cinematography
Best space movie
1. 2001 - A Space Odyssey
2. Interstellar
It was all good and sciency till love transcends bs started.
So NASA traveled forward in time, brought back today’s special effects technology, and faked the Moon landing footage. That makes perfect sense.
don’t know if this is a joke or an actual opinion lol
@@bdp7590 it was a joke photoshop and CGI we’re made like 20 years later or 10
@@genghiskhan.2265 cgi (computer generated images) was a thing back then but was far, far fron convincing or even close to enough to convince someone that it is real
I think that the real argument is that it was done in a set with little cgi added to make it look real.
But you can see the problem with that as well.
@Vihaan Yadu there is this thing called a joke, you might have heard of it.
You clearly missed this one
8:30 One tiny detail for you: on the Moon's surface the atmosphere is only 2 x 10^5 particles/cm^3, mostly helium, neon, hydrogen and argon, for a whopping 4.133 x 10^-18 g / cc compared to Earth's 1.225 x 10^-3 g/cc near sea level, so on the Moon when your foot kicks up fine dust, coarse dust, fine grit, coarse grit and small pebbles there's nothing to slow them down and grade them by particle size, and you don't get the dust cloud slowing down right in front of your boot and pebbles flying on out of it that are shown here.
Actually Tom Cruise has booked a flight on SpaceX dragon to film a movie.
And there's a Russian movie being filmed on Space Station soon
To understand Star Wars' actual practical effects it should be seen as de-specialised edition
The problem is... you can't really get your hands on it anymore. At least, not legally.
And still, The greatest space scenes ever filmed are in 2001: A Space Odyssey in my opinion
I would say that gravity has the best space scenes. They aren’t very realistic from an orbital physics perspective but they _really_ capture the movements of someone in a zero g environment (in most cases). Not to mention the beautiful backdrop of earth used throughout the movie
@@burritoboy1012 Gravity was an awful movie.
@@davidkennedy3050 Gravity was a great movie. Especially if you could watch it in 3d on a 65" plasma tv like i did.
Gravity was much better in 3D cinema than it is on TV. But you can say the same about Interstellar in IMAX vs. TV
@@davidkennedy3050 I never said it was a great movie. It’s got a very bad story and bad characters; but the visual effects and space physics are amazing. It perfectly captures the feel of a spacewalk and the emptiness of space (until the space debris scene, which is stupidly unrealistic)
and then we have Tom Cruise who is going to space to film a movie
Dude's next level.. so he still didn't make the travel? I heard he's looking for supporting actresses who can deal with space travel..
What if tom cruise is in a movie about commiting mass genocide 🤐😳
My guess is that they will have to enhance the footage with a ton of CG anyway. You. can’t control lighting and composition as well as in a studio, and any space shots out the window will probably look like crap, because of exposure or just not the right angle or view. Seems like a wasted effort, and more of a PR stunt.
@@aliensoup2420 well Tom is known for doing these Kinds of things like in 4th Mission impossible he hung to a side an actual Airplane with just ONE safety wire and eye protection and he did that 8 Times to get a perfect shot and he did helo jumping 110 times to make every shot perfect in mission impossible fallout so I'm not surprised that he wanna go to space and he is and Jackie Chan are the Only 2 actors in the history to get banned from all of the insurance companies 😂 because no one wants to risk there Money on these two.
Tom Cruise and director Doug Liman will go to space with the Ax-2 mission, but not before Fall 2022.
Meanwhile russian film maker Klim Shipenko and russian actress Yulia Peresild will be on board of Soyuz MS-19, launch date 5 October 2021, to film a movie in space.
By the way, Klim Shipenko was the director of Salyut 7, so he knows a little bit about space movies.
I was disappointed that they didn’t even talk about The Expanse, since it has the most convincing gravity to me at least
Eeeh.. great series with great effects, but at times has some big fat lazy inaccuracies.
Fun fact!
Space movies became so popular that they made space a real thing!
so what is up there then
This reply section is gonna be a sea of wooooshes, be careful
Nonsense, space is about as real as birds are. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet kids, it's all smoke and mirrors!
Sky is the limit no space.
@@KillahMate The irony is I'm almost certain that whatever "proof" you've been cited has indeed come from the internet.
Never forget that 'First Man' beat out 'Avengers: Infinity War', 'Ready Player One', and 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' for Best VFX at the Oscars...
AND, 'Gravity' also won in that same Category, beating out 'The Hobbit Part II', 'Iron Man 3', and 'Star Trek Into Darkness'.
Wth thats amazing
'because there is no air resistance'
i think he meant the resistance as in the water
He meant air. Earth's air is not a vacuum. Gravity from earth's mass is very much present when we move, not just when we jump or fall, we just dont know it.
A little sad that Forbidden Planet wasn't mentioned, but I guess virtually every scene in the film is on a planet.
I just love that film.
Who would have thought 10 years ago that Rear Projection would be back as the new hot technology for making big budget movies?
I find it funny that CGI is presented as the way to go, when The Expanse has shown that a good and creative crew can do the thing with really crazy stuff with wires and minimum CGI, seriously, I bet, CGI body doubles are most often way too expansive, in comparison to other means (creativity, wires and sets).
CGI allows you to do things that are physically bad boy for a human being to do
if you reached the end of the video, you would see that CGI is presented as ONE OF the tools that one should use, not exclusively the only one. Just as a movie shouldn't rely entirely on model work, and a movie also cannot rely entirely on full scale real-for-real. You HAVE TO fake some things.
The trick is knowing when to use what technique, and do it well rather than just as a budget saver.
@@k1productions87 but that is the issue: usually Studios rather go cgi than even ask the question whether there is a better way to go.
Obviously you have to fake some certain things. But you do not have to fake everything. And some movies simply look fake for that very reason.
Thank you for showing us how much work and engiuity goes into making an amazing movie
No mention of how much more realistic the arrangement of stars was in 2001 than in the light bulb star field. The light bulbs were placed at similar distances to each other, almost grid-like, with very little variation of distance between any two stars. Kubrick's stars, on the other hand, looked as if they were placed randomly in a naturalistic, unconscious pattern.
This is a fantastic look at the technological development to make space films look more legit than ever before.
LED screens is actually how they filmed most of the Mandalorian!
Wow, that’s cool!
fun space fact: in earth orbit on the day side you can not see any stars because the sun and the light reflected off earth is so much brighter so it completely drowns them out, same applies to the moons surface, thats why you dont see any stars in the background of photos the astronauts took on the moon.
This is the most interesting video regarding cinema techniques that i've seen in a while.
Nghe xong bài này cái thấy tâm trạng buồn và nặng nề kinh khủng. Nhưng lại cứ phải replay hoài cả ngày😍
The OG star wars trilogy was so ahead of its time.
As a hardcore fan of sci-fi movies, especially about space vogaye, I'm crying of proud watching this! Thanks, Insider for covering up a wonderful story. 😭❤
Just mind blowing and wonderfully delightful!
There is even a new way that allows to enclose the actors within a scene surrounded by led screens which gives a lot of realistic lighting and mirroring
Thank you for the video. Very informative.
Fun fact : since there is no air on the ISS, Astronauts are trained to hold their breath for 2 months....
I read the title as 'space scones' 🙉 Was so excited for it too for some reason
Once commercial space stations and moon bases become reality, imagine the new highly detailed movies that will be made.
This year Russia is launching a movie director and actress to the ISS to film parts of the movie.
And next year Tom Cruise is booked a flight on a SpaceX dragon.
( commercial spaceflight it's already allowing movies to be filmed in space)
@@tylerleblanc520 Wow! My idea sure caught on fast... 😎
Well you've finally found a profitable use for manned space flights.
Very cool, SO still holds legit to this day.
6:50 "cause there is no air resistance" Well I'm pretty sure there is air inside the ISS.
4.55 those are the CGI X-wings that were added in the late 90s.
Thank you for this video, insider.
Amazing work!
"One small step on its own, but taken all together, was one giant leap for the cinema, one dust cloud at a time," Cool narrator.
Gravity is the most visually stunning film I have ever seen. And in 3D it was mind blowing. 😍
I don't even consider myself a big fan of space movies, but this video is very informative and useful
Sir Aurther C. Clark author of the book 2001 :Space Odyssey, worked in his lab not even 1 km away from where I live, in Sri Lanka
🇱🇰 ☄️🚀🛸
I saw the good Sir Arthur the other day in a documentary on 2001, I thought, man have I missed you!
I have been waiting 💕💕
Love this series
The good CGI doesn’t forgive the fact that _The Midnight Sky_ was a terrible movie.
Yeah ... most the time, they forget to focus on making entertaining movies. Perfect CGI doesn't mean anything if the movie s**
I'm confused, isn't "The Midnight Sky (2020)" is the one with George Clooney at the artic?
@@xponen yes
Truth.
The CGI is terrible as well.
Gravity is insane! Love that movie
Absurd premise, but very very beautiful.
Hat up to all the sicfi director for their limitless effort to give the viewer best experience
Thank you all for inspiring us fans
I love this. I love space movies.
Lol at them showing the CGI Star Wars when talking about miniatures
Because that is the only version one can get legally. Lucasfilm (both pre and post Disney) refuse to release the original versions
Wow truly impressive.
The thumbnail
Before: Space is fascinating
After: AGONY!
Kubrick took a giant leap in 1968 that very few have been able to better
2001 A Space Oddisey still looks great 60 years later.
This is a beautiful gift for a geek like me.
You're forgetting how they made objects float in space Odyssey, they very very lightly glued said object to a glass pane and that way when an actor moved it they wouldn't struggle to take it off
The floating pen in the space plane scene. Very short, doesn’t really affect the overall story but just pulls you right into the “this is the 21st century and regular people are going to space just as people ride airplanes now view from the 1960’s. I was 7 years old when 2001 came out and I swore I’d seen the future. We’re getting there but not as fast as we’d hoped.
I would love to see the different modes used to fake hangings in movies. P.S .: excellent videos !!
Very interesting, but too little. I'd have enjoyed more if there was little more depth and length to this exciting video. Always loved behind-the-scenes of movies.
Nice video my friend
"They move fast in weightlessness because there is no air resistance." Shows fast movement inside the ISS.
To illustrate the use of models and motion-control cameras, Insider used scenes from the Star Wars Special Edition, which were totally CGI.
Better luck next time, guys
The funniest thing about space movies is when there walking around inside a spaceship
This cannot be completed without talking about the EXPANSE series.
The focus of this video was confined to movies. I'd love to see a follow-up for TV series.
BSG enters the room.
The focus is not only movies, but also FIRSTS. The Expanse does great, but it didn't innovate anything.
"Look at this old-school FX tech in Star Wars!" [shows CGI replacement scenes from the late 90s and early 2000s]
Amazing
0:55 but why did they even need actors to portray the moon😭
Because it was art.
Well it was French art.
At least it wasn't a clown.
Kind of a whoops moment during the Star Wars section to use 1997 Special edition footage from New Hope vs the original 1977 miniatures :v
Not exactly a whoops, as there is no way to legally get ahold of the non-special edition version in anything other than VHS, which is exceedingly more difficult to translate onto a digital video.
@@k1productions87 not worth arguing about this, if Disney cared enough they'd send out a C&D to the people doing restoration work to the original Trilogy, or with Lucasfilm having scans of the original films could put it on Disney Plus tomorrow if they decided. Copyright law has been so mangled to keep a rodent in one corporation's greasy mitts for decades, and if companies aren't looking to preserve their IP for appreciation Vs profit, more power to the Robin Hood restorers
Leap in tech and filming was significant in 2001: Space Odyssey
Amazing! Looks even more real than what NASA shows.
I would love to watch
first man!
4:55 talks about models on bluescreen but shows a 1997 special edition CG shot
I did not realize that a space odyssey was SO old!
Interstellar and the one with Sandra bullock and George Clooney were the ultimate best!
Sci fi space movies are my favourite ❤️❤️❤️❤️
During the section on Star Wars you're unfortunately showing some of the CGI shots that were done for the Special Edition, not the original model shots.
Nothing beats Apollo 13 as they didn't really simulate the microgravity. They were really in a microgravity.
It's a nice summary of the history of special effects, but it's a bit strange that for the Star Wars segment they picked so many shots not from the original movie release, but from the updated cgi shots from the later releases. They basically illustrated the Dykstraflex technology by showing cgi shots from twenty years later. Most of the X-wing shots in this video are cgi.
After watching this video I feel that going to space and shooting movie scenes there would be much easier
The funny thing is that none of these movies should be mentioned in the same breath as Apollo 13 as far as realism is goes. Obviously the movies made before it can be excused, but not the ones that came after it. There is absolutely NO substitute for ACTUAL free-fall (which is what "weightlessness" really is). WELL FUCKIN DONE Ron Howard, well FUCKIN DONE!👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Should have included Interstellar, especially how they created an image of black hole before any black hole imagery
05:11
@@lmaostfufrdawg i am talking abt that black hole scene it was so monumental that it deserves a small description not just 2 second clip
Hi, I have not seen interstellar, how does the image compare to previous versions like the movie The Black Hole (1979)?
@@jonathanjohnson8376 u must be trolling, watch it man..1979 one is nothing in compare to what Interstellar pulled off
@@jonathanjohnson8376 you are so lucky that you havent seen it , i wish can watch it again for the first time
Can't believe they didnt include the 1992 space movie. Might have been more on the scifi side but it was revolutionary
Can't believe you completely glossed over Kubrick's July 20, 1969 release!
Man, the budgets really did go down. They used to film on location…
In the case of the spacecraft in 2001, I think you forget that Arthur Clarke was far in advance of NASA. He was, after all, the inventor of the communications satellite, and not “merely” a science fiction author. It's something of a humiliation that you then go on to talk about Star Wars, which ridiculously portrays spacecraft as moving through a dense medium like aircraft do, setting back the portrayal of spaceflight to pre-1950s standards.
Missed an opportunity to say "Gravity is the greatest film of our generation."
Surprised the expanse wasn't mentioned.
The Expanse is good, but it didn't innovate anything. It just drew on what was done before at the time, just putting it all together. This video is about FIRSTS
@@k1productions87 ahh. Ok. Thanks.
"No air resistance"? Well that would mean there was no air, and instead of hugging, our astronauts would be asphxiating.
I still think 2001 is a non-CGI miracle
The beginning sound of the video sounds like the beginning of ACAB by City Morgue
4:53 the shot shown here is not from the original Star Wars. It’s a digital effects added in the 2000’s.
because you cannot legally get the non special edition version
6:49 lol yes there is air unless they are outside the ship.
Everybody: The Expanse? RIOT!
Me: er....For All Mankind?
You didn't acknowledge Star Trek original series. The transition between the 1950s and Kubrick's '69 epic. The space shots were far more advanced and realistic than the 1950s: think of the shots of the Enterprise in orbit around a planet, for example.
Star Trek didn't really innovate anything in that regard. At least not from any sort of production standpoint
and this from a life-long Trekkie too
@@k1productions87 I assure you, cell-phone-like hand-held communicators, interfacing with computers, warp drive, beaming transportation, prime directives, etc. were not in the public consciousness in 1965...unless you were a hard core scifi fan. Star Trek introduced them to the general public.
@@lawrenceallen8096 that has nothing at all to do with the topic of this video. Its talking specifically about filmmaking techniques
Space 1999 (season one) had very realistic looking space scenes.
You don't find too many Venutians in space movies anymore either.
How could you have left out "Die Frau im Mond (Woman in the Moon)" by Fritz Lang? It was the first film to attempt to show spaceflight realistically (based on Hermann Oberth's research) and remarkable for 1929. It also nicely plugs the 48-year gap between "Trip to the Moon" and "Destination Moon"
Wish they had not chosen to ignore the Russian film COSMIC JOURNEY (1935) or CONQUEST OF SPACE.
@@RSEFX - Wow! I didn't know anyone else even knew about CJ! I wrote an extended chapter on it in my new book, "4 to Go", which covers the four films that tried to show spaceflight accurately (the others being, of course, "Frau", "Destination Moon", and "2001."
@@hagerty1952 I went to the film archive outside of Moscow in 1992 and screened CJ and other space-type films made in Russia, which hadn't been shown in the US, and wrote about it a few years later. I was able to get a script from it, and photos thru the archive (mostly be being there in person).
I'm glad it is slowly being re-discovered/was neglected for many decades.
@@hagerty1952 I was taken aback by this film when I first saw it in 1992. How could a film as fascinating and ambitious as this have been "disappeared" for so long?. I'd been on its trail since the mid-70's, but found I actually had to just go there and negotiate with the film archive in person to finally see it and get some background material on it. (I took pictures off the screen with my 35mm camera---if anyone still remembers those---which I was able to tweak a bit in photoshop and print in my articles. ) I'm glad to see that you too have given it some time in the sun.
@@RSEFX - Ah! Now I know who you are, Bob! You scanned the picture of Tsiolkovsky talking to the director for me. Thanks again for that.😀
2001 planet shots look like Star Wars before Star Wars
Great vid, but if you're going to talk about the Dykstra shots in Star Wars, you should show the actual shots from the original movie, and not the recreated CGI shots from the Special Edition.