NASA and Tom Cruise, along with Elon Musk’s SpaceX are currently collaborating to develop and film the first movie set in space, with the International Space Station (ISS) set to be the primary filming location.
On May 5th, 2020, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine confirmed the news on Twitter:
It hasn’t yet been revealed how Cruise will partake in the project, however, it is a widely-known fact that the actor is not one to shy away from executing perilous stuntwork in his films. A good example is 2015’s Mission Impossible: Fallout in which Cruise “clutches the side of Airbus A400 for dear life” — The Verge.
Nevertheless, is it really necessary to use up so many resources to film a movie or even a couple of scenes in outer space?
Without a doubt, CGI has taken over the film industry and has, in most recent years, been used excessively to help convey the stories portrayed in the biggest films of the decade such as Avengers: Endgame (2019), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and Black Panther (2018).
In recent years, there have been many award-winning films based around the concept of outer space that have, almost if not perfectly, nailed the ‘space-scape’ and atmospheres present in those movies. Some exceptional examples include Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar (2014), Ridley Scott’s The Martian (2015), and Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity (2013). It can be said that these movies perfectly encapsulate and replicate the realistic environments that exist beyond the Earth’s solar system. So, if these movies can replicate our surroundings effectively through CGI, why go to space?
Some strong-minded movie enthusiasts may argue the idea that the outcome of the film will look more realistic or be more effective than CGI, while others may argue that there’s no purpose if CGI technology can replicate the surroundings perfectly. However… it can be considered a waste of useful resources and a waste of funding.
Don’t get me wrong, this project could be a great opportunity to explore the processes of creating a whole film in a very different environment. Perhaps even pave the way for the film industry to explore more methods and processes behind creating movies in ways they wouldn’t usually. Looking at it from a different angle, it would even be a strategic business move to help with the publicity of not only the upcoming project but also the parties involved. This could help seek out potential investors which means the companies wouldn’t have to pay out of their own pockets.
However, taking into account the excessive amount of funding and assets that are being put forward into the development of this film (NASA has stated that the cost of getting to the ISS is said to be an estimated $50 million), it could be used more advantageously. For example, research or further development of technologies that benefit more important projects or missions, which will help promote innovation within the companies and future projects.
But has it been considered what would happen if this project failed? Has the fact been considered that the investments put into the project could be wasted, when instead they could have been put forward to fund more important research and developments?
While it may be a smart business move to draw attention to the parties involved to seek out investors and publicize themselves, is it worth risking investments of millions just to film something that could have easily been replicated using technology, no matter how cool it may look? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
