Talk:Woman in the Moon

message: What is the source for "often thought of as the first serious sci-fi movie"? Is "serious" in quotes because the claim is dubious? A_Trip_to_the_Moon (1902) was relatively short, but has great special effects for 1902; and given that it's sci-fi (not science documentary), it might be regarded as just as "serious" (in making a good entertaining film). Perhaps the first full-length feature sci-fi movie is the real idea behind the comment? Rogerfgay (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  serious sci-fi 

message: Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik 18:21, 26 October 2010
:. Except I added it to a new "Further reading" section in the article, since the rest of us editors have not read it so we cannot reference anything in it. 5Q5 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: In the section titled "Influence" there are included the following entries:
[1]- "the rocket ship blasts off from a pool of water; water is commonly used today on launch pads to absorb and dissipate the extreme heat and damp the noise generated by the rocket exhaust"
This isn't why the Film's rocketship was immersed in water. Narration in the Film explains that the pool of water is to offset enough of its own weight to allow it to support itself, owing to the premise that its structure, because of the need to minimize total mass, is too fragile. No real rockets are immersed in water for this purpose (Russian rockets launching from Kazakhstan don't use water at all; the exhaust is scattered by an enormous dry concrete flame pit). It's not even consistent: the Film's rocket not only had to support its own weight at 1g, but also at more than 1g as it accelerated from its pad up to escape velocity. The circumstances in the Film didn't influence or forecast any real practical development.  
[2]- "in space, the rocket ejects its first stage and fires its second stage rocket, predicting the development of modern multistage orbital rockets"
The Film didn't forecast multistage rockets. The principle of staged rockets was figured out years earlier by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and was known the the Film's technical adviser Hermann Oberth. 
[3]- "the crew recline on horizontal beds to cope with the G-forces experienced during lift-off and pre-orbital acceleration"
It's ludicrous to credit the Film with solving the problem of dealing with acceleration. Aerospace engineers aren't so clueless that they consult science fiction movies to get through each workday. It's more like the other way around: Hermann Oberth, a real rocket engineer, may have suggested beds as an obvious solution in his role as consultant. The Film also nonsensically has the pilots contort their bodies such that they hang partially off those beds in order to operate the control panel, which is situated off to one side in the least ergonomic way possible. There's no way that an engineer suggested such an arrangement. As it turns out, no real rocket passenger has ever endured high acceleration on a flat bed. They've always been strapped into couches shaped more like chairs, with the legs bent for more optimal support. The Film can't be credited with forecasting real eventual engineering solutions to this problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lame example of nitpicking. Very lame. --2003:C6:3738:2CCF:415:36B2:EDDD:1879 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous claims about the Film's influence 

message: It Would Be Nice If the cast list (apparently copied from IMDb) were translated. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Brains and Checkbooks?