Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Is this thread just for the technical stuff?
Yep. I thought the effects were pretty impressive, though there was an awful lot of shaking going on, and noises that sounded like a submarine about to implode, even when in space. I'm also not sure why the controls in the LEM were so dirty.It was also focused very much on Armstrong, so the sequence of events was a bit fractured.
I thought leaving the bracelet on the moon was hokum, and I was right - they made it up, probably to add some 'emotion' to a notably emotionless character. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a23744321/fi...
I'd have preferred a factual film not one with made-up bits.
I'd have preferred a factual film not one with made-up bits.
It's not really about the space program, it's about the man. Bits of it are genuinely gripping, some of it plods a bit. From what I've seen and read, they got the characterisation pretty good. But (aside from the bracelet thing) I came away without thinking about the acting, or the effects, or the props, because they were all done well. It felt rather sad rather than uplifting tbh.
Some of the astronauts did leave personal items behind. I know Charlie Duke and Gene Cernan.
At the end of the day, I am prepared to allow Hollywood some artistic licence as long as the gist of the movie is close enough to what happened.
"Hidden Figures" was riddled with partial truths and weird time contractions and mislocations of events - but it was still faithful to the actual events surrounding the characters.
At the end of the day, I am prepared to allow Hollywood some artistic licence as long as the gist of the movie is close enough to what happened.
"Hidden Figures" was riddled with partial truths and weird time contractions and mislocations of events - but it was still faithful to the actual events surrounding the characters.
Eric Mc said:
At the end of the day, I am prepared to allow Hollywood some artistic licence as long as the gist of the movie is close enough to what happened.
"Hidden Figures" was riddled with partial truths and weird time contractions and mislocations of events - but it was still faithful to the actual events surrounding the characters.
lol Eric it’s good of you to “Allow” Hollywood some artistic licence. It’s a film all films have a truth but are never “the” truth. Your truth is only from what you have read and interpreted it’s not actually “the truth” "Hidden Figures" was riddled with partial truths and weird time contractions and mislocations of events - but it was still faithful to the actual events surrounding the characters.
The same with hidden figures it’s a flaming film giving a broad outline and in 120 mins how much time is available to tell “The truth”
Even members of rock bands will give different versions of their stories from their perspectives
Give Hollywood a break at least they have the artistic and creative skills to actually make a film, whether we like the product or not.
I view it as 'making stuff up'. Just because somebody left something personal on the moon does not mean that everybody else did. There's enough real material and real drama in the space race to make a film without making things up as well.
But I'm going away from my own thread. On the tecchy side, how did it hold up?
But I'm going away from my own thread. On the tecchy side, how did it hold up?
Eric Mc said:
I'd expect the story to focus on Armstrong as it is based on his biography. As I said on the other thread, he is not the most exciting person that ever lived so making a film about him as a person interesting might have been a bit of a struggle.
you may find this galling Eric but I’ve seen Armstrong when he came to London and yes he was an extraordinary man. Eric Mc said:
Seems he liked the soppy bits best.I'm reading 'North to the Orient' by Anne Lindbergh (she flew with her husband on this trip in 1931). From NY across Canada's frozen wastes, the very top of Alaska, Nome then across the Bering Strait and on down. But there is nothing about the aeroplane (I'm over halfway and have no idea what kind it is), or about the flying, or the landings or the take-offs - it's mostly descriptions of Eskimo clothing and house interiors
By contrast Charles' account of his transatlantic flight in 1927 is totally gripping.
king Nora.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff