did he fake the moon landing?

>no set design, feels empty and lifeless
>no interesting ideas for storylines and generally bad writing
>relies on gimmicks only instead
>those are unoriginal or just bad, unfortunately ("fuck you, albert", glove, andy and lucy, coordinates, riddles, ...)
>bad acting (Bell, Lynch, Horse, Robertson, Dern, ...)
>dull characters (one-dimensional at best)
>storylines and characters are introduced for no purpose
>everything is supposed to weirdly connect and make sense
>shot in digital in a way that doesn't compensate for the technology's disadvantages (looks bad)
>roadhouse scenes (out of place, badly shot, the songs, the bands, the extras, ...)
>student-tier storytelling/editing (characters are shown walking up complete sets of stairs)
>stretched out needlessly, long takes have no particular effect
>everything above is literally cringe-tier in concept and implementation
>obviously delusional and/or inexperienced fanbase perceiving it as particularly meaningful, complex or "deep"
>can't compare to the original series that doesn't have those problems (coherent/complex and beautiful sets, costumes and make-up/well shot/well acted/well written/magnificent multi-dimensional characters and character relations, music, storylines and gimmicks/creates a unique athmosphere as a result, changing the world of television forever whereas "the return" neither manages to do something established really good nor to invent something new)
>somehow the best thing in tv history

>>87309347
never fucking post in my thread again kid

File: 2959c15505f5fc9fc6bd4ca362bd483a822dcd6feec3199f2bfc3add53111ca9.jpg (8KB, 162x255px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 162x255px

>"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn't exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It existed in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."

Really activates those almonds

>>87311037
Saturn V was fucking expensive who know

>>87309109
faking the moon landing telecast in 1969 would have been harder than actually going to the moon

>>87311037
That means nobody builds rockets that big anymore because there's no need. He did word that first sentence poorly though.

File: 1461086354129.png (1MB, 1147x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1147x608px

>>87311037

>Cost per launch: $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars[2] ($1.16 billion in 2016 value), of which $110 million was for vehicle.[3]

File: moon.jpg (69KB, 585x604px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 585x604px

Yes.

>>87309109

The Moon landing was live on TV, ofcourse it was real!

>>87312057
Funny enough, people actually spotted a coke can during the original broadcast.

>>87309109
He did fake the landing, but Kubrick was such a perfectionist that he insisted it be shot on location.

>>87312345
how many times have i seen this joke...

File: d20.jpg (28KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x600px

>>87312345

still funny