Talk:Capricorn One

"Upon returning to Earth, the empty spacecraft unexpectedly burns up due to a faulty heat shield during reentry"

Uhhh, not quite. It is quite clear in the book (which, unusually, the movie follows very closely) that Kelloway and his conspirators had no intention of allowing the astronauts to return alive (think about it ... how could they???) and the failure of the heat shield is a planned event. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, we can only interpret the events of the film. It is not clear the accident was planned, nor is it clear it wasn't, so I suggest we simply remove the word "unexpectedly". The motivations are unclear, so we should just stick to the events that are depicted i.e. the vessel burns up on re-entry implying the astronauts must have died. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Having just watched the film, it seems that the bad guys were going to allow them to return home. If you watch the scene where the heat shield is failing, the astronauts are on board the jet flying out. Then the jet turns around and puts them back where they were a few minutes earlier - The next we see of them are in a briefing room that was established earlier to be right next to the film set. What would be the point of the charade of putting them on a jet dong a U-turn and taking them back where they started to kill them? Further, the whole point of the conspiracy was to have a successful mission. Dead astronauts would destroy the program much worse than if the launch had never happened. The whole conspiracy was about showing success so the budget didn't get pulled. I'm guessing if they went a different way in the novelization, they explained the bad guys to have different motivations to in the movie.178.99.90.150 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead astronauts would destroy the program much worse than if the launch had never happened....

good point. if they were trying to show how safe space-travel is it doesn't make sense to destroy the capsule. and if they were pulling out the astronauts at the last minute to save their lives it doesn't make sense to kill them later anyhow. and if they planned both the explosion and the murder of the astronauts they might as well have let those astronauts go to mars and die in the explosion (unless the ship never went to mars? then they'd need the studio-footage of the mars-landing)

so this article might try to clear up the motivations of the 'bad guys'. insofar as the movie or book makes those motives clear. Selena1981 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article title is simply the name of the work, ie, it seems not to make a distinction between the book and the movie. The book does make it quite clear. Having said all that, yes, your suggestion will do the trick for either. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We have the date wrong. Capricorn One opened May or June 1978

‘Capricorn One’ Relaunches Grounded Career of Gould, The Press-Courier, PC The Weekly Magazine of Ventura County [looks like Sunday supplement for Saturday paper], June 24, 1978, page 5.

‘Capricorn One’ a space-age thriller, The Miami News, Tuesday, June 6, 1978, 2C.

and a slew of other newspaper sources.

http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_epq=Capricorn%20One&as_occt=any&as_drrb=b&as_mindate=07%2F01%2F1977&as_maxdate=12%2F31%2F1978&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A07%2F01%2F1977%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1978&authuser=0

I guess just goes to show how easy it is to get the date wrong. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This film was released in Japan six months earlier than in the US, so there is no problem.49.97.107.93 (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact, the original story from 1954, 'Appointment in Tomorrow', is subtitled 'Poor Superman'. Cold war between East and West, the West created a secret agency tasked with professionally disinforming the voters in order to prove the technological superiority of the Western ideology. The director is convinved that eventually the west will actually deliver what it could not achieve at the time the bureau has to deceive the voters in believing what the West could achieve. And, voila, 'Capricorn One' won the race against 'Superman'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A548:D02E:0:1507:D61D:BB73:8709 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'Capricorn One' discussed in book(s)

Nicholas De Monchaux (2011). Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01520-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

pages 257-59:

' . . . One of the first to imagine the conceit was CBS reporter Peter Hymas. “There was one event of really enormous importance,” Hyams later reflected, “that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.” . . . '

' . . . Explaining the delay, the [New York] Times concluded: “Watergate may not have inspired ‘Capricorn One,’ but it made its thesis more acceptable, its plot more credible and some of its content strangely prophetic.” . . . '

Genesis of the film

Seems to be a major contradiction on the page. In the lead the article says that the story was inspired by conspiracy theories about the moon landings. But the production section explains in detail how the writer and director, Peter Hymas, thought of the concept and story while working at CBS on news of the Apollo program. I'd suggest removing the item from the lead and making a link to the conspiracy theory page in a 'See also'. Would have done so myself, but the page has 42 watchers and some may either like to comment or know a back-story I don't. If nobody comments in a couple of days, or does a fix, and if I recall to come back here, I'll do it then. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:28 13 November, 2014 (UTC)

Helicopters aren't black

while being pursued by black helicopters

The helicopters are green not black, and the link to the conspiracy theory article seems irrelevant. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that this issue was also brought up previously in 2010, so I've gone ahead and changed the article's text to remove the "black" and the link. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK to simplify the plot section?

I'd like to modify the plot section to remove some slightly tedious details. Is that OK? For example, I would make

At an unspecified time,[1] Capricorn One—the first manned mission to Mars—is on the launch pad. NASA authorities such as Dr. James Kelloway (Hal Holbrook) realize, too late, that a faulty life-support system supplied by a lowest-bid NASA contractor will kill the astronauts during the flight. As the manned space program needs a success to continue, they find themselves forced to falsify the landing rather than cancel the mission.

into something like

Capricorn One—the first manned mission to Mars—is about to launch. NASA authorities realize, too late, that a faulty life-support system will kill the astronauts during the flight. As the manned space program needs a success to continue, they falsify the landing rather than cancel the mission.

I think that it's better to be concise and remove the details. If nobody replies, I'll proceed with the work. I'd also like to add information about the film's performance at the box office, etc. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. Hope that's OK. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel's video

Is there a reason we cannot include the cover of Bart Sibrel's DVD cover? The Capricorn One Mars set is obviously featured on the cover and its appearance there is mentioned in the final section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.126 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)