>>4582020>technical aspect (cinematography was excellent)definitely agree with that. the setup of the shots / detail is great.
>>4582020>and in storynah. the story is semi-decent.
it's kind of how people bummed 'the taxi driver', which is filmed well and has a semi-decent story for the time but there's nothing that amazing about the plot, by any real stretch.
>>4582020>you only watch re-runs of "This is War"i don't even know that is
or own a tv
>>4582021>ask yourself how the fuck they shot some of those scenes which look better than todays shit without CGIagreed.
the alien films are another example of that. the original was filmed in 1979 but still looks better than a lot of films now. i think the keys are a.) actually knowing what you're doing with lighting / set design b.) effort.
>>4582021>It's certainly within the realm of possibility, he had to skill to pull it off.someone asked me if i thought the moon landings were real at one point and i gave basically the same answer.
technology wise, going to the moon isn't ultra complicated provided you can form air tight seals etc; which they could in 1969.
as a for instance, check the pic related. things like turbomolecular / ion / sublimation pumps can all produce vacuums as deep / deeper than that found outside the space station. they were all invented prior to the moon landing.
https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/periodicals/public/Agilent-Ion-Pump-History.pdf