The new film Fly Me To The Moon is about a parallel faked moon landing (a “back up plan”) in case the real one failed. I just think this is the wrong time to have a movie like this, with people no longer believing anything. The youtube comments seem to back me up. 
And this from a guy that actuality liked Capricorn One.
I have a hard time getting agitated - it’s fictional, and it doesn’t seem to emanate from morons pushing an agenda. Yes, there are idiots in the world, but I don’t think we should stop making movies or writing books because of them.
Frankly, I’m more annoyed by movies that are “based on a true story” that end up creating falsehoods about real people or events. Even good films like Apollo 13 (Swigert was NOT a hindrance on that flight) are guilty of this to some degree.
The best argument I’ve ever heard against the “the Moon landing was filmed in a Hollywood stutio” story is that Stanley Kubrick was the only director who could have pulled it off at the time and he was such a perfectionist that he would’ve insisted on shooting on location.
Isn’t the movie a comedy?
Leveraging moronic conspiracy theories to make money is sort of what free enterprise is all about.
Yes, and from the looks of it they answer the “what if” question by showing how trying to falsify an an event as massive as the moon landing would have been an hilarious failure.
I kind of share the same outrage. My intelligent but not educated hair stylist asked me, sort of confidentially, if I believed the moon landings were real. I got more annoyed than I would have liked.
For it to be a conspiracy, then entire professions - science, aerospace engineering, and so on - would have to be a part of it, and a major part of the profession would be maintenance of the lie(s). And as Neil DGT and others have said, it’s actually easier to believe we went, then that we faked it. It forced me to re-think how to handle such people.
The moon-landing-was-faked loons will extract excerpts from the movie to “prove” their point.
What’s mildly interesting is that such a movie would be produced long after faked landing claims got off the ground. Often, conspiracy nuts point to past movies as “proof” of their theories, bizarrely insisting that They 
always warn us of their intentions ahead of time. 
Capricorn One
Well I expect this will have the same deleterious effect Monty Python and the Holy Grail has had on medieval history.
Next up, from the makers of ‘Fly Me to the Moon’, it’s ‘Pancake Earth!’, a hilarious family-friendly romantic comedy about how the Earth is actually flat— “they’ve” been lying to us about the Earth being round for thousands of years- ever since that mischievous prankster Aristotle. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll learn.
Between Civil War and this movie, I am rather curious about the sources of funding in Hollywood, these days.
Mythbusters had a bizarre moonlanding episodes. Both men had long careers in set design and video effects. They built a very realistic mockup of the moon landscape and used all their skills to replicate the video of the mission. It was probably better done then what the pro movie makers could have done in July, 1969. (Mythbusters had more advanced production technology).
Then the mythbusters insisted it wasn’t faked and give reasons why.
I think it was pretty odd 
they showed exactly how the pros would fake it and then argue it wasn’t.
I never doubted that the moon landing is real. There were hundreds of people working for NASA or civilian contractors. It wouldn’t be possible for a hoax to be perpetrated for over 50 years.
Or for thousands of those who would know the truth being killed, without news of their demise becoming widespread.
Since the film is a “back-up plan,” I want to know what happens at the end-- do they “need” the back-up plan, or does the real moon landing succeed?
If the real mission succeeds, and the fake film is an hilarious disaster, it might be a very funny movie-- on the other hand, if the mission fails, and the perfectly convincing fake is used, I’m more than bothered-- I’m horrified.
I did once talk a guy who had just seen a documentary (his word) on how the moon landing was faked, and he went on and on about how they showed that they could do this and that thing perfectly, and it would look like it really happened.
My response to him was “So?”
Just because they could fake it doesn’t mean they did. I’m waiting for the documentary with the smoking gun-- the one with the memo that says “fix the shadows in frames 26-100, they are earth shadows-- we need moon shadows,” or, “Nope, we need to use real pressure suits despite the cost-- the wool-stuffed ones make them sweat, and that’s a dead giveaway.” Or a confession-- or blueprints for the fake moon set.
None of the “documentaries” ever have those.
Well, damn, I jumped in here wondering what parts of the Sinatra song you objected to.
Is it the playing among the stars?
Is it the conjecture about springtime on Jupiter and Mars?
What a letdown.
mmm
How much gossamer does one need to construct wings capable of leaving the atmosphere? It’s not exactly carbon fiber.
My guess is that they’ll give us a cop-out ending where they actually land on the moon… or did they? - which in a way is even worse.
(One ending I’ll find acceptable is if Apollo 11 does successfully land on the moon, but their cameras are all busted or something so they use the fake instead - in other words, the moon landing was real, but the moon landing footage was faked. That could work).
Not to mention a very elaborate system for storing and distributing the lunar samples returned from the Apollo missions.
Maybe I take it hardedr because my dad professed to believe that we never landed on the moon. Youc an imagine how exasperated I would get. I never know for sure whether he actually believed that, or was just yanking my chain.
Other than moon kandings, and JFK assassinations, my dad was pretty smart,