Nice comment!

Supposedly NASA themselves contacted the filmmakers to find out where they had gotten such spectacular launch footage.

Agreed. I only worked for him once, but that was absolutely my impression as well.

They're all really brilliant, I honestly can't fault them.

Yeah, they always make my day when I find a new one.

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.

Have you seen the music video by OK Go - "Upside down & inside out"?

Thanks for watching!

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

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.

Leslie Ekker

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!

I doubt there was any need for that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.