Elon Musk and Tom Cruise Developing First Feature Film in Space

by

Tom Cruise and Elon Musk’s Space X are working on a project with NASA for the first narrative feature film in space. It would be an action adventure movie shot in outer space.

Tom Cruise does many of his own stunts. He has flown helicopters and climbed high rise buildings.

The first action movie in space with Tom Cruise would have $1 billion box office and there would also be money from the documentary making of the movie. Preparation for the movie could have a reality TV series.

SOURCES- Deadline, SpaceX
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

51 thoughts on “Elon Musk and Tom Cruise Developing First Feature Film in Space”

  2. I’ve always wondered what Scientology’s lure was. Companionship with fellow fools?

  3. Anyone who beleives a Wheatstone bridge can determine anything but electrical resistance is a prime idiot, and has no business anywhere as dangerous as orbit. That’s right, an e-meter, the device used by scientologists to discover a sucker’s “Thetan load”, is a Wheatstone bridge with delusions of grandeur.
    L. Ron Hubbard must have found a sophomore electrical engineering text and copied it. After reading his books, I’m sure he was not creative enough to design it himself.

  4. When I’m criticising movies with kids in them, I mean for adult audiences.

    Yes, kids like movies with kids in them. But you can have a movie appeal to kids with adults in them (Star Wars episode IV), but stick a kid in them and suddenly the adults get annoyed (Star Wars episode I).

    I’m not classifying Back to the Future as having kids.

    One example that shows what I mean is Terminator 2. Now John Conner was conceived in Terminator 1, which means that the year the T2 was released he would be 7 years old. Which is no good. You can’t have a 7 year old in your action film and appeal to adults. So the movie was set in the future (from then) of the mid 1990s. Subtle: the audience missed it except for those tragics who freeze frame and read background text to find that the dates were actually 1995 or something. It’s been described as the most accurate future depiction ever filmed. 1995 looks just like 1990. Which is pretty much spot on.

    I’ll make one last exception for “Last Action Hero”, though it was self referential enough to not be a straight action film.

  5. Bugsy Malone is a given.

    She played a straight, tragic version of the same character in Taxi Driver.

    I was very underwhelmed by Lost Boys, but maybe it would have worked for me if I’d seen it when it came out. As it was it is dominated by extremely 1980s hair styles and fashion and trying to be “cool” in a way that comes across (in the 2000s) as dated and cringey.

  6. He just mistook the name of one of the four human landing system contractors—hey Tom…it’s DYNETICS, not dianetics

  7. Which Jodie Foster films?

    I’m assuming Bugsy Malone must have been one?

    Also, what no love for The Lost Boys?

  8. It is not a matter of appealing to adults necessarily, but other kids. The Karate kid I thought was pathetic…that did not stop kids from loving the film. Goonies, E.T., Home Alone, and Back to the Future (yeah, I know, Fox was not really a kid anymore). And Garry Colman was actually a very good actor, even if he became known for a one liner. Matthew Broderick was quite good, though admittedly like most, he was playing characters who are supposed to be younger. Bill Mumy was pretty good. Soleil Moon Frye was pretty good.

  9. “given we’re soon going to have enough people walking around on the Moon and Mars” – yeah maybe in 50 years or something.. sure

  11. Experiencing zero G is already possible on the ‘Vomit Comet’ that Cruise used for filming a scene in The Mummy.

  13. Cruise has connections up the yin yang for good writers – I don’t imagine that he would be unaware of the disaster that water world was.

    I think that given the extra dangers + expense of shooting in space that they will probably have the entire production planned to near perfection before they spend so much as a single day in space.

    The only thing that seems really difficult from a planning perspective is the sets – they may have to literally build a new space station just for the purpose of shooting this, perhaps something ala the Bigelow big modules. Did they finish collecting data on the small test module attached to the ISS?

  14. The stars don’t get shanked by the ‘church’, at least not their money anyway – they are the venus fly trap that lures in new converts, assuming they even still get new ones at this point.

  16. I have more faith in the ability of a big hollywood production to totally stuff things up.
    Oh, they can get things very right. Some of the big productions in the past couple of decades have been masterpieces.
    But they also have the ability to throw money into a bottomless hole. Especially when the movie has a “special feature” that they expect to do all the boring work of plot, character and writing.

  17. In the entire history of cinema there have been maybe 3 movies with kids in them that weren’t lame.
    Two of them had 12 year old Jodie Foster, who isn’t available any more.
    One had the character Wednesday Adams, who acted like a creepy adult anyway.

  18. I was thinking how hard this would be to make entertaining, but then I realized, everything can be green screen leave just the actor in zero G. Add everything else CGI. One box of props, and a few outfits. Got to do his own makeup and hair.

  19. We will never hear the end of this if there is an accident. I think that makes it too big of a risk. I would avoid using famous actors. Use someone famous and there will be specials and conspiracy crap for decades. An unknown or not very famous actor and people will forget it in a year.
    And I would use people who would be interesting in zero G like gymnasts or brake-dancers. There has got to be a few that can act. Have to tweak their voices so they don’t sound like they are breathing helium.
    Though, if I was certain the risk was minuscule, I would use a least one kid. The first kid in space! That would be fantastic for getting kids interested in space and such.

  21. A movie made in space?
    Real 0 g, not fakes made with wires, as Hollywood produces?

    Such a movie will make money more efficiently than printing them. 2 billion $ at a minimum.

  24. WW is infamous for spending an absolute fortune on filming the entire thing in an exotic location (the entire thing was filmed at sea).
    Then they had a somewhat lame plot with clumsy writing. Direction that consisted of shot after shot showing you the exotic film location, but not actually being exciting to watch.
    And ended up barely scraping a profit even when including video sales.

  27. OK – let’s brainstorm about what scenes they may want to do that could improve upon CGI.

    A sex scene is almost a given.

    They will most likely shoot in zero G so that means things floating around. Humans in space suits is easy to do in CGI so most groundbreaking footage will probably be humans or animals in normal outfits.
    Space scenery like footage of the Earth doesn’t need actors.

    Perhaps physical phenomena like fire, liquid etc. that behave very differently from what people are used to.

  29. So, are they going to develop a super anti-reflection coating for the insides of the helmets, so that lighting the actor’s face won’t render him blind to everything outside the helmet, as happened in the Outland movie?

    I suppose that might actually have some practical application, given we’re soon going to have enough people walking around on the Moon and Mars that it would be genuinely useful to be able to see each other’s faces, to know at a glance who is who.

    In Operation Outer Space, a reality TV show was used to finance the first interstellar mission. I suppose I could tolerate reality TV if it actually had that sort of useful consequences.

    I pity the guy who gets voted out the airlock, though.

  33. True, imagine how many people would want to see this movie and what went into making it. It’ll be a cash cow that easily returns investment and then some, Musk will do this.

  35. My least favorite tech guy sends my least favorite actor into space for a movie and we’ll likely get my least favorite movie…

  36. “Rocket Man : Road Trip” Featuring Major Tom Cruise and his side-kick mechanic “Scotty” Musk, driving a Tesla Roadster through space after deploying from a Starship.

    The Roadster is modified a bit – it has a cold fusion power plant and reactionless drive to get them to Mars in a short action montage, a magneto-plasma aerobraking shield to blazingly de-orbit, and finally they’ll aim really carefully and time it to come in at an angle parallel to the slope of Olympus Mons, touching down on special ablative graphene tires and using cold-gas thrusters to hop the occasional boulder.

    Elon will be in charge of making sure all of that stuff really works.

  39. The first action movie in space with Tom Cruise would have $1 billion box office

    You cant proclaim that unless NASA will guarantee the receipts.
    What will the added expense get you by actually being in space vs. some good special effects? You will just end up with lots of gratuitous sequences just for the purpose of emphasizing “look we’re really in zero g”.

    there would also be money from the documentary making of the movie

    Ever seen the view counts of NASA in space vids?
    The Mars One business model isnt exactly a smashing success.

  40. So, is Elon just going to launch Cruise for deep space on a Falcon Heavy never to be seen alive again?

    If not, I’ll pass on that movie… 😉

  45. You jest, but with regular Starship launches in a few years, the experience of zero G will become far more common.

    And we’ll notice it in popular culture.

  47. At last good zero g effects, beyond what the Apollo 13 movie did on a vomit comet, that is.

  49. Does the live action movie in space include a trip around the moon with Japanese investor and his posse of artist and musicians and?? Actors?

Comments are closed.