Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand_Lunar
...I whole heartedly think '2001' is a great film. But you are not quite correct in saying we didn't know what the lunar surface looked like by the film's release. Close ups from the Lunar Orbiter probes were available in 1966, and they showed enough detail as to the nature of the lunar landscape.
Despite the dated look of it, I don't let it ruin the experience of the movie for me...
|
If we mean the more jagged areas (alla Chesley Bonestell paintings,) – yes. There are however some jagged, craggy steep areas on the moon. The astronauts never went there as these regions are too dangerous to land near. Steep jagged mountains are found in the highlands and between maria. "2001" horizons give the impression that big mountains on the moon are uniformly more Earthlike in terms of peaks and edges. That's probably where the criticism of it being inaccurate comes from. Also the consistently dramatic, stark lighting of the moon base, near the shadow terminator is not what people are used too from the generally more bright and sunny Apollo pictures. The film's art directors were wise I think.
Some folks (not saying you do,) also get the wrong impression that the moon is overall consistently like a sandy smooth, hilly desert, based on the landing areas seen in some of the many Apollo pictures. Even these actual landing areas are deceptive as there were also impressively large boulders and in one case the amazing Hadley Rill. Seeing all the available Hadley Rill images leaves one with the feeling that this feature would fit very well with the "2001" landscapes. In cropped photos, the lack of atmosphere can also make large objects in the distance look closer and smaller than they are