tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893206653438189717.post1826832533550795206..comments2024-03-28T03:19:12.867-04:00Comments on space1970: Coming Attractions: HANGAR 18 (1980) TV SpotsChristopher Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15978811373546110421noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893206653438189717.post-15166916047652577782013-07-09T18:22:38.294-04:002013-07-09T18:22:38.294-04:00As a ten-year-old UFO enthusiast, these commercial...As a ten-year-old UFO enthusiast, these commercials definitely got my attention. Even before the big Roswell craze in the '90s, I'd read about flying saucer crashes and recovered alien bodies, so I totally believed this movie was based on real events. Oddly enough, I later discovered my dad had actually worked at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio (where the "real" Hangar 18 was alleged to be) back in the '60s, but he claimed he never saw any saucers or aliens there.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893206653438189717.post-76078299958604189952013-07-08T14:02:59.782-04:002013-07-08T14:02:59.782-04:00Gordon- The "Gov't Conspiracy" is a ...Gordon- The "Gov't Conspiracy" is a fundamental tenet of UFOology. In Chris's Space 1970 era there simply wasn't going to be a UFO movie that did not have a coverup.<br />I was in college when this one came out so my persepective was quite a bit different than it would have been for you. The conspiracy part was a yawner for me anyway- I never was a big fan of conspiracy theories. While this movie was anything but Academy Award Material -coming out between Close Encounters and ET it handled some of the basic SF concepts better than either.<br />Spoiler Alert-The really stupid accident that led to the UFO crash- was something I thought intriguing and believable . No supermen- no flying through the sky on bicycles (UGGGH!!!!) Instead the contact happens because of a really dumb accident- a flask containing toxic gases is left unsecured and breaks when the UFO is hit accidentally by a satellite being launched from the Space Shuttle. And these guys aren't "Angels in Spacecraft" either -they kidnapped a chick too. I left the theatre knowing it really wasn't a very good movie in any way shape or form- but I also left thinking about the plot elements. That spacecraft was far more believable than the mothership in Close Encounters.Dave Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893206653438189717.post-59404640800121294672013-07-07T23:35:06.216-04:002013-07-07T23:35:06.216-04:00I remember this commercial (the 1st one); I was yo...I remember this commercial (the 1st one); I was young maybe 10 or 11 and fascinated by UFOs. I thought this movie was going to be a true story (nobody lied or made fake movies...right) couldn't get my dad to take me before it disappeared from movie theaters. I saw it a few years later on VHS and was terribly disappointed; it wasn't a documentary, there were no "revelations" or admittance by actual Gov. officials to having possession of a UFO or alien bodies... Even more disappointed that when they finally get inside the ship and start finding cool things: star maps, weapons, propulsion system, and a database showing they have been to Earth before and are planning to return.... They try to destroy the UFO and end the movie..Boy was I a gullible, impressionable, and overly trusting kid...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12605111222119190576noreply@blogger.com