APOLLO 13 miniature effects
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2022
- APOLLO 13 miniature effects. Patrick McClung, Leslie Ekker, Clark James, and Gene Rizzardi talk about the miniature work done by Digital Domain for the film. Upgraded segment from Sense of Scale. Photos: Gene Rizzardi, Laurah Grijalva, Patrick McClung, Michael Possert Jr, Digital Domain
- Фільми й анімація
A very common thread in all these videos is how genuinely nice these effects people are. Which is, well, nice.
Nice comment!
I remember watching the launch sequence in the theater and thinking they used actual NASA footage. I was stunned when I later learned it was miniatures. Amazing work!
Supposedly NASA themselves contacted the filmmakers to find out where they had gotten such spectacular launch footage.
Many Hollywood interviews have contributors lavishing praise on their colleagues, but it often seems motivated by social norms or as a good habit for one's career. However, Leslie Ekker's gracious attitude towards his co-workers is quite genuine. If it's not completely real and he's just faking it, then he needs to move to the other side of the camera because his thankfulness appears to truly originate from his heart.
Agreed. I only worked for him once, but that was absolutely my impression as well.
Another fascinating glimpse into things! Apollo 13 really is a standout movie in terms of FX, especially marrying models with digital, and it’s clear that they went the extra mile with verisimilitude (impossible angles and artistic flourishes notwithstanding!). Also, the bit about the Oscars at the end was really intriguing too. Yay to BAFTA for doing things the right way round! Now I’ve got to go back and compare the Oscar and BAFTA winners over time and see what’s what…
Love these "making of" videos...keep 'em coming!
They're all really brilliant, I honestly can't fault them.
Yeah, they always make my day when I find a new one.
One of those Apollo capsules still sits in the hall at the Digital Domain LA office, I loved to look at it every day when I came into work in the morning and on the way out at night
Just rewatched the film. The FX hold up great. In so many ways I wish Hollywood still made intelligent movies like it
I love how decisions are made to use artistic license to tell the story. I bought the Apollo 13 DVD when it came out and at one point I turned on the “James Lovell Commentary” feature where he interjected his own thoughts as the ran. During the launch sequence in the film, the connecting arms swing away from the rocket as the camera approaches them. But he said in real life they moved all at once but in the film it was much more dramatic w/ the music to have them move one by one. Another point he made was when Lovell and his lunar module pilot Fred Haise had to fire the LM’s engine to get them back on the path toward the earth, in the film it showed Lovell looking at the earth through the LM’s front-looking triangle window. But in real life Lovell said that would have been impossible because those windows were looking 90 degrees away from earth and they used the LM’s overhead or “eye brow” windows to see the earth. But he said it was a film making decision that told the story better.
What great people. Complete professionals filled with passion for their craft.
He missed the asbestos batting on the F-1 engines.
I would love to have those CSM & LM models. They are gorgeous!
Thanks a lot for sharing this.
I've hardly seen any "making of" and "behind the scenes" footage relating to this fantastic movie.
What a lovely chap and clearly ultra intelligent
Nice! As a lifelong model builder I approve.
I would give anything to have those models in my collection after they were done filming they are true works of art. At the very least they belong in the Smithsonian or some other air and space museum were people can appreciate them. That type of craftsmanship needs to be preserved not stored in a warehouse or tossed in the garage like pieces of trash.
I think some were used in the HBO/DreamWorks miniseries From The Earth To The Moon
@@kentallard8852 you’re right they were but I’m curious as to what happened after the HBO miniseries.
The fact they shot some weightless scenes from *APOLLO 13* aboard a _"Vomit Comet"_ type aircraft to simulate true weightlessness is very significant to me.
Have you seen the music video by OK Go - "Upside down & inside out"?
Thank you for your inside views and stories. I could listen to you guys for hours. It is so interesting. I really appreciate it. Keep up the good work.
Very interesting. Greetings from our Space Studio.
great video its good to see an here how they came up with ideas to make the models look as if they are the real thing an act like the real thing . this an all of the videos are a sort of history in the making of movies an the use of models in the movies as always i passed this along to twitter an on face book i look forward to seeing more of them
Thanks! I have posted my entire documentary here on my channel, but I may add new interviews.
@@piercefilm your welcome i look forward to seeing them
I have only just found this channel. OMG. Amazing information about the best of the best movies and creators behind the scenes. Thank you so much !
Thanks for watching!
Excellent segment, thank you!
Amazing insight.
I loved the effects, but the Saturn V was painted wrong.
Those models need to be in a museum.
Stuff usually got scrapped after shooting. We did that a lot in the 80s and 90s...list of shots done = into the dumpster it goes unless someone took it home for themselves.
Models often didn't hold up beyond the shooting and what went into storage often aged terribly during transport and handling...or it rotted away in some warehouse.
The sad reality of making miniatures for movies and TV.
Very lovely....
(1) Great video!
(2) Now I want to urinate in space to see what it looks like...😊
That guy at the end, I missed his name, I like him. He seems like a cool guy.
Leslie Ekker
Not a model thing but always wondered if they considered using CGI to get rid of that film crewman you can see in the command module before the “she’s yours to fly Jack” shot.
These are so great. It'd be really helpful if you added section markers with the interviewee's name. I think it's just as easy as putting "0:43 Leslie Ekker" (etc) into the description and it'll show up on the timeline.
A lot of parts is missed. The F1 engines, for once, where wrapped in heatshield, so no details on the engines was visable.
That's a part most models makers get wrong, since they "Swim away" in a detail rush, about the engines, to get them right, and then get it very wrong in stead.
About the F1 engines, they probably have chosen to show something that could be perceived as more real, rather than historically accurate. If you haven't knowlege of that piece of engineering, and on screen you see nothing more than some crumpled silverfoil, you can loose suspension of disbelief. I can live with that inaccuracy.
The heat shields were aluminised asbestos - they were only put on immediately before flight because they knew they were a toxic material hazard and thus only appear in the actual launch footage…
I know this is 5 months after the fact, but you mention something that really frustrates me about this film.
That's what gets me as well. It's not nit picking and it's not taking licence with the story as it is a fundamental fact that was wrongly portrayed.
You can play around with scenes where characters are interacting as you do that for dramatic effect, but when you change something that is a recorded fact, such as what Lovell actually said as opposed to Hank's line is another error. I refer to, "We've had a problem," as opposed to, "We have a problem." And it was Swigert who first said it before Lovell repeated it. It's on the audio, in the transcripts. You can't play around with that.
Besides, this one guy is waxing lyrical about how accurate they made the launch sequence from the flames to the ice sloughing off the rocket and then have something so basic wrong as the thermal shielding is unforgivable in that context. No doubt they just saw photos of various unused F1 engines on display and didn't think to research it as much as they say they did.
Regardless of whether the average viewer knows about that aspect of engineering or not, it's not right!
These guys are as can do as those in the real story. Allow men to be great again, Hollywood
he makes oscar look like that everyone can buy from a store
I wish "Accuracy Cop" was in hollywood credits haha.
The F1 engine bells wore insulated jackets which the movie missed. (maybe on purpose?)
Great models but the F1 engines without the covers grinds my gears every time I see it.
We're there any model minture puppets in the Apollo capsule model
I doubt there was any need for that.
I'd love to know more about those replica models behind Pat McClung. Clearly perfectly done replicas. Did he build them himself? At the time of shooting? What's the story?
Those belong to a collector where we did the interview. He loves Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactic and Hartland stuff. The models are made from the original molds, and some even have original parts from the filming models. You can see the Hatchet Pirate fighter model next to Dave Jones in his interview. That interview was also done there. Fun stuff!
@@piercefilm : Wow. I'd love to get castings of those! I have a couple of them but the Galactica Shuttle remains one of my unrealized holy grails. I did get a chance to extensively photograph the original, but I've never had the time to build it and find all the kits needed to bash the details. Hoping someone someday comes up with an accurate kit of one.
For all the time and money spent to make sure the miniatures used to shoot this film were "accurate," why, then is the Saturn V Launch Vehicle so incorrect? The Saturn V which took Apollo 13 aloft was serial number SA-508 and a large number of photographs of the rocket on the pad and during launch are readily available from NASA. The short-list of problems seen in the filming model - The 5 F-1 engines were not "batted," or insulated, The S-1C (1st stage), S-II (2nd stage) and S-1VB (3rd stage) black roll patterns are incorrect. However, this takes nothing away from the incredibly realistic detail of the movie's lunch sequence, with the ice sheets falling, the behavior of he flame at the base of the rocket, the swing arms coming back - genius!
Sometimes directors or producers want certain changes. It's not a documentary. As long as it looks great on screen most people don't know.
What happened to the incredible models ?
Some are still at Digital Domain. Some were reused in From the Earth to the Moon TV series. Now in storage or trashed.
@@piercefilm thank you very much for the reply. Good to know some survived. Must be close to heartbreaking for the makers to see months of their amazing work being trashed. Criminal.
the biggest mistake they made was they left out the thin sheet metal coverings on the engines, they looked like they were wrapped in tin foil
That's probably why they were left off. Sometimes the director or producers prefer things to look cool rather than real, so the model makers have to oblige. The shots may have looked silly with coverings despite being real.
They weren’t sheet metal - they were aluminised asbestos cloth and a substantial hazard to the launch crew and thus only put on just before flight.
Just as the CG is just as good as the CG artists, models are just as good as the builders and the people who film them. In both cases, if they don't get the time and resources they need to create the shots they are hired to do it all turns to crap. Physical models are not a guarantee that everything becomes amazing and these days when in some cases the producers force the effects people to do scenes (hello, ugly bird in "Force Awakens") both "practical" and digital that is purposely below what the scene demands to make them look like "practical effects" just to please some nerds, you can really see how bad it can be.
True, but you can't get 2.3 million for a CGI spaceship like that Star Wars X-wing just sold for... I'd rather see a miniature in a movie than CGI even if it isn't perfect. It exists!
That was not the reason it was built -nobody builds anything for a movie with "they are going to sell this model for millions." or "they are going to put this model in a museum." in mind -what they have in mind is "this must look good on camera.". It's good when a model survives but the truth is that almost all models made for movies are destroyed after filming because at the time nobody sees any worth in them they are just objects that take up space that can be used for something else. The money worth of a filming model lies not in the model itself it's the movie it was made for.
Yes, obviously. I'm just saying CGI is old right after the film comes out and the quality looks crappy after ten years when the new CGI gets better. Miniatures and real props and locations and real costumes look real and great forever. Even if the film is a bad Ed Wood style B-movie. And, you can collect the models or see them in a museum. CGI is just animated nothing. Even old cell animation is great because it is a real thing, and you can collect a hand painted cell with Bugs Bunny etc. People like to be a part of cinema. They like to see the tricks and possibly own things from their favorite films. CGI doesn't exist. Part of filmmaking is suspending disbelief. Using practical effects is much more creatively interesting, and you can enjoy everything after the film is done. That's why so many people watch my channel here! But of course the suits at the studios want billions, and they don't care what is used. Luckily, directors like Wes Anderson still prefer shooting on film and using miniatures/hand made props etc. If Picasso were alive now and doing digital paintings, I would still only want a hand painted one on canvas. It's just more beautiful and interesting to see reality.
Great film but monumental fail of using the wrong paint scheme on the saturn 5. How they got that wrong based on the research they say they did is pretty poor.
Sometimes the producers or directors want changes from reality so the model makers have to oblige.
@@piercefilm they all just saw the plans to the SA500-F clearly, the test saturn 5 which had that paint scheme. That is pure laziness though that they didn't watch any actual saturn 5 launch as they would have quickly noticed they had the wrong paint scheme
I hope they all feel proud of getting as close to going to the moon 🌙 as the "real" Apollo 13❤️.They it better for a lot less money 💰 🤑 💸
Tháy Mésséđ up HÚGÉLÝ Withé thé Eńgińês Tâkê -Ôff
If the director and producers want it to look a certain way because they like it better, you have to do what they say... and everything looked great! Most people in the audience don't know or care if it is exactly right. It's a movie.
@@piercefilm i don't think the producers or directors didunt do it cos they liked it thatt way, itt was pure ignorance they didunt research itt properly, there are a LOT of Apollo fans thatt wooda bin watching, u think they cooda pulled there finger out untt madè an effort att Léást 😕 😞 😌 😕
@@MeaHeaR As a model maker you do what they tell you to do. Even if it isn't accurate. Watch my Hunt for Red October segment. The director made them cut a section out of the Russian model submarine to make look "meaner." It's a style choice and the model makers have to oblige.