A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 8th 18, 03:48 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

In article ,
says...

Huge media attention has been given to the Neil Armstrong biopic First Man in not showing the planting of the USA flag. I understand the reasons offered behind this decision. If I was the one querying the director or Ryan Gosling, I would say...

Imagine doing a movie on the life of Edmund Hillary, and then during the scene of reaching the summit of Everest, not showing him raising the British flag.
To quote Vizzini, inconceivable.

Or doing a movie about Iwo Jima, and not showing the raising of the flag.
Boggles the mind.

Now here is what no one is focusing on, given all the buzz:
Skipping that scene is not the only missed 'flag opportunity' that Damien Chazelle passed on. He could have included in his movie what happened to the flag as Apollo 11 blasted off of the lunar surface.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a presentation of the US flag being blown over by the Ascent Stage blast. THAT would have made for a dramatic scene that would have been worthy of intense post-premiere debate.

Back in 1998, Tom Hanks skipped this historical event entirely. His episode dedicated to that mission ended with the flag raising. And other parts of that depiction of the EVA were cringeworthy. In particular, Buzz coming down the ladder. The E2M series on the whole held a high bar, so why they showed that scene in the way they did is curious. I'd be interested to hear Tom Hanks or Ron Howard comment on that. And whether they gave any consideration to showing the

flag blowing over.

My guess is that that's a scene that no one has considered putting into any Apollo 11 movie depiction. Not a production made in the USA, at least.

~ CT


My $0.02.

This is a Neil Armstrong biopic (sp?). The flag is there in the scenes
on the lunar surface. They only omitted the planting of the flag, which
was not considered to be a big thing. They're emphasizing the whole wee
came in peace for all mankind (the actual quote is on a plaque right
there on the moon left there by Apollo 11).

Homer Hickam wrote a good article about this issue. And if you don't
know who Homer Hickam is, look him up and read some of his books (hint:
one of them is famous and was made into a Hollywood movie).

The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting
By Homer Hickam, September 5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...anting-was-no-
big-deal-leaving-it-out-of-the-movie-is-no-big-deal-
too/2018/09/05/84096812-b13e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

Homer Hickam not only lived through that era (later working for USAAMC
and NASA), but he also has experience with Hollywood translating his own
work into a movie. So, I would consider him an authority in this area.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Ads
  #2  
Old September 8th 18, 05:11 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 436
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:48:48 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Huge media attention has been given to the Neil Armstrong biopic First Man in not showing the planting of the USA flag. I understand the reasons offered behind this decision. If I was the one querying the director or Ryan Gosling, I would say...

Imagine doing a movie on the life of Edmund Hillary, and then during the scene of reaching the summit of Everest, not showing him raising the British flag.
To quote Vizzini, inconceivable.

Or doing a movie about Iwo Jima, and not showing the raising of the flag.
Boggles the mind.

Now here is what no one is focusing on, given all the buzz:
Skipping that scene is not the only missed 'flag opportunity' that Damien Chazelle passed on. He could have included in his movie what happened to the flag as Apollo 11 blasted off of the lunar surface.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a presentation of the US flag being blown over by the Ascent Stage blast. THAT would have made for a dramatic scene that would have been worthy of intense post-premiere debate.

Back in 1998, Tom Hanks skipped this historical event entirely. His episode dedicated to that mission ended with the flag raising. And other parts of that depiction of the EVA were cringeworthy. In particular, Buzz coming down the ladder. The E2M series on the whole held a high bar, so why they showed that scene in the way they did is curious. I'd be interested to hear Tom Hanks or Ron Howard comment on that. And whether they gave any consideration to showing the

flag blowing over.

My guess is that that's a scene that no one has considered putting into any Apollo 11 movie depiction. Not a production made in the USA, at least..

~ CT


My $0.02.

This is a Neil Armstrong biopic (sp?). The flag is there in the scenes
on the lunar surface. They only omitted the planting of the flag, which
was not considered to be a big thing. They're emphasizing the whole wee
came in peace for all mankind (the actual quote is on a plaque right
there on the moon left there by Apollo 11).

Homer Hickam wrote a good article about this issue. And if you don't
know who Homer Hickam is, look him up and read some of his books (hint:
one of them is famous and was made into a Hollywood movie).

The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting
By Homer Hickam, September 5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...anting-was-no-
big-deal-leaving-it-out-of-the-movie-is-no-big-deal-
too/2018/09/05/84096812-b13e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

Homer Hickam not only lived through that era (later working for USAAMC
and NASA), but he also has experience with Hollywood translating his own
work into a movie. So, I would consider him an authority in this area.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


+1
  #3  
Old September 8th 18, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

From Jeff Findley:
In article ,
says...

Huge media attention has been given to the Neil Armstrong biopic First Man
in not showing the planting of the USA flag. I understand the reasons
offered behind this decision. If I was the one querying the director or
Ryan Gosling, I would say...

Imagine doing a movie on the life of Edmund Hillary, and then during the
scene of reaching the summit of Everest, not showing him raising the
British flag.
To quote Vizzini, inconceivable.

Or doing a movie about Iwo Jima, and not showing the raising of the flag.
Boggles the mind.

Now here is what no one is focusing on, given all the buzz:
Skipping that scene is not the only missed 'flag opportunity' that Damien
Chazelle passed on. He could have included in his movie what happened to
the flag as Apollo 11 blasted off of the lunar surface.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a presentation of the US flag
being blown over by the Ascent Stage blast. THAT would have made for a
dramatic scene that would have been worthy of intense post-premiere debate.

Back in 1998, Tom Hanks skipped this historical event entirely. His
episode dedicated to that mission ended with the flag raising. And other
parts of that depiction of the EVA were cringeworthy. In particular, Buzz
coming down the ladder. The E2M series on the whole held a high bar, so
why they showed that scene in the way they did is curious. I'd be
interested to hear Tom Hanks or Ron Howard comment on that. And whether
they gave any consideration to showing the

flag blowing over.

My guess is that that's a scene that no one has considered putting into any
Apollo 11 movie depiction. Not a production made in the USA, at least.



My $0.02.

This is a Neil Armstrong biopic (sp?). The flag is there in the scenes
on the lunar surface. They only omitted the planting of the flag, which
was not considered to be a big thing.


In the E2M depiction by Tom Hanks and Ron Howard, the flag planting was the ultimate thing. Their Apollo 11 episode "Mare Tranquilitatis" spent a full 45 seconds focused on the flag planting, with the final shot of the episode being a fadeout of the still frame from the 16mm LM camera.

As for Damien Chazelle & Ryan Gosling's opinion, I suggest that everyone associated with that project was *well aware* that the flag planting was "a big thing". It's just a big thing that they decided to ignore.

They're emphasizing the whole wee
came in peace for all mankind (the actual quote is on a plaque right
there on the moon left there by Apollo 11).

Homer Hickam wrote a good article about this issue. And if you don't
know who Homer Hickam is, look him up and read some of his books (hint:
one of them is famous and was made into a Hollywood movie).


Hint #2: Think twice before telling him to "Suck my dick and balls."

The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting
By Homer Hickam, September 5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...anting-was-no-
big-deal-leaving-it-out-of-the-movie-is-no-big-deal-
too/2018/09/05/84096812-b13e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

Homer Hickam not only lived through that era (later working for USAAMC
and NASA), but he also has experience with Hollywood translating his own
work into a movie. So, I would consider him an authority in this area.


An authority in the area of exploration and flag planting would not overlook the key significance that this act has had historically. Planting a flag in a new territory had specific legal meaning. It meant that the country represented by this flag was claiming the territory as its own property.

Homer Hickam, for whatever reason, does not so much as hint about this key significance. And I see his article, by overlooking this central aspect, to contribute to the revisionist history that is central to this entire issue.

'Revisionist' is a very strong term, implying that facts are being changed. A better term would be "omissionist history". Facts that are selectively being ignored, or have been omitted by lack of due diligence in research.

One of the key reasons why the US Congress and NASA had considered planting a United Nations flag, and not a US flag, was because it was illegal for the US to claim any part of the Moon as its own.

Look at the hundreds of articles that have been published on this First Man controversy. How many authors mention that central aspect? It was central in 1969. Yet half a century later, people have forgotten it, if they ever learned it to begin with.

This summary presented by Homer Hickam falls WAY short of what I myself consider to be a complete assessment:
==============
Although the lunar flag-planting may seem like a given in hindsight, for months before the flight of Apollo 11 there was a debate within the federal government and in the press as to the wisdom of doing it. The argument for the flag was that the voyage was an entirely American effort that was paid for by American taxpayers, who deserved to see their flag planted in the lunar regolith. The argument against was that it could cast the landing in the eyes of the world as a nationalistic exercise, diminishing what was otherwise indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals, not to mention a demonstration of our technical superiority over our great adversary, the Soviet Union.
==============

If Homer Hickam was aware of the central *legality* issue, it is quite curious that he does not state it. He is contributing to the Omissionist History problem.

Homer Hickam also makes no mention in his article about what ended up happening to that flag, and the lack of anyone depicting a movie scene that has the potential to be extremely powerful.

Another questionable statement in Homer's article:
"It is not the story of the moon-landing but of the world-famous astronaut himself."

The *only reason* NAA was world-famous was *because* of his Moon landing.

Homer's most telling statement is:
"...I personally would have included the flag-raising..."

It is bizarre for anyone to even debate whether or not the flag planting should have been included. If a director were to do a 10-second micro-biopic of Neil Armstrong's life, the first thing you'd include is:

- His LM landing, piloting the Eagle to touchdown on Mare Tranquilitatis.

And the next thing you'd include is:

- His 1st Step.

And the next thing you'd include after that is:

- His flag planting.

Now if that same director were to expand this biopic project from 10 seconds to a run time of more than 2 hours, it is, as stated originally, utterly inconceivable that you would leave this scene out.

Homer Hickam is certainly entitled to his opinion. But his refusal to call this out strikes me as perhaps being motivated out of a desire that he wants the movie to make its money back in the box office.

Is Homer utterly unaware of what the movie title "First Man" is referring to? It means that NAA was:

- the First Man to land on the Moon,
- the First Man to step on the Moon, and
- the First Man to plant a flag on the Moon.

It is not worthy to debate whether or not it was proper to omit that third point. Imagine if Damien Chazelle had made a 2+ hour movie about the life of NAA being the "first man", and it screens at the Venice Film Festival, and the entire audience leaves bewildered that for some strange reason, his movie did not show the scene of the Eagle landing on the Moon.

This makes headlines: "First Man does not depict Eagle's landing on the Moon."
And then hundreds of articles are written by authors around the country and the world, including NASA experts like Homer Hickam justifying this editorial choice by saying:

"There's not much point to showing the actual landing. Besides, the movie shows many scenes with the Eagle on the surface of the Moon."

It would be laughable, and not worthy of debate.

And likewise, Damien Chazelle's decision to not show the flag planting is not worthy of debate. You might as well make a 2-hour movie about the life of Neil Armstrong and never show Neil Armstrong one single time.

It was one of the top three defining moments of his entire life. And it is those three events, taken together, which is why history for all time will remember him as the First Man.

~ CT
  #5  
Old September 9th 18, 10:35 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

From Jeff Findley:
In article ,
says...
It was one of the top three defining moments of his entire life.


Cite? I'm serious. This was a Neil Armstrong biopic, so what Neil
Armstrong thought of that event is what matters most, not what the US
public thinks.

You're making the assertion. You back it up. What exactly did Neil
Armstrong think of planting the flag? Was it truly one of the defining
moments in his life?


It is laughable to hold that what matters most in a biopic is what the person thought of themself. If there was merit to that view, then all depictions of Adolf Hitler would show him to be the greatest leader of all time.

And books about Jeffrey Dahmer would all include recipes.

JF: "...not what the US public thinks."

I agree with that part.

In documenting the historical significance of an event that has impacted the entire planet, it is far from paramount to only paint the picture of a small fraction of that population.

Damien Chazelle has been entrusted with documenting a slice of human history. And it is clear to me that the proper angle to take is to show what the event meant to NAA as a person, balanced with what it meant to his family, balanced with what it meant to his friends, balanced with what it meant to his country, balanced with what it meant to the opposing country he was competing against, and then the big picture of what it meant to all of humanity.

If you do that properly, the end result is that you have a balanced movie.

JF: "What exactly did Neil Armstrong think of planting the flag? Was it truly one of the defining moments in his life?"

In my own one-on-one discussions with Neil, I never asked him that.

But he has given interviews where he gives a clear impression that he didn't want his life defined by *anything* he did on Apollo 11.

And that's another reason why we don't look to the individual in order to get the final answer on what that person's life meant. The only reason the world cares about him is because of Apollo 11. This movie was not made because he was the First Man to cook an amazing dish for his wife using an unusual set of ingredients. And it wasn't even made because he was the First Man to accomplish an orbital rendezvous & docking. The world doesn't care about Gemini 8. History doesn't care about it, except for a small handful of space geeks.

The only reason the world cares is because he was the First Man. Again:

- The First Man to land,
- The First Man to step, and
- The First Man to plant.

For anyone who wants hard data to back this up, I recommend taking a poll. Ask people around the globe: "What are the top 3 things that Neil Armstrong is remembered for?"

Many, if not most, will say "Neil who?" Then you explain who he was. And that's when people will point to these three things he did.

If Neil were to present his own Top 3 list, it's quite possible that *none* of those events would make it. Look at Thomas Jefferson. On his tombstone he had his Top 3 listed. And you know what did NOT make his list? President of the United States.

Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. Does anyone care about that? He did.

https://i2.wp.com/periodicpresidents...gravestone.jpg

~ CT
  #6  
Old September 10th 18, 11:42 AM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

In article ,
says...

From Jeff Findley:
In article ,
says...
It was one of the top three defining moments of his entire life.


Cite? I'm serious. This was a Neil Armstrong biopic, so what Neil
Armstrong thought of that event is what matters most, not what the US
public thinks.

You're making the assertion. You back it up. What exactly did Neil
Armstrong think of planting the flag? Was it truly one of the defining
moments in his life?


It is laughable to hold that what matters most in a biopic is what the person thought of themself. If there was merit to that view, then all depictions of Adolf Hitler would show him to be the greatest leader of all time.

And books about Jeffrey Dahmer would all include recipes.

JF: "...not what the US public thinks."

I agree with that part.

In documenting the historical significance of an event that has impacted the entire planet, it is far from paramount to only paint the picture of a small fraction of that population.

Damien Chazelle has been entrusted with documenting a slice of human history. And it is clear to me that the proper angle to take is to show what the event meant to NAA as a person, balanced with what it meant to his family, balanced with what it meant to his friends, balanced with what it meant to his country, balanced with what it meant to the opposing country he was competing against, and then the big picture of what it meant to all of humanity.

If you do that properly, the end result is that you have a balanced movie.

JF: "What exactly did Neil Armstrong think of planting the flag? Was it truly one of the defining moments in his life?"

In my own one-on-one discussions with Neil, I never asked him that.

But he has given interviews where he gives a clear impression that he didn't want his life defined by *anything* he did on Apollo 11.


I'll agree with that. The actual evidence supports the assertion.

He was also a professor at the local university (University of
Cincinnati) as well as living in a smallish town outside Cincinnati
(about 10 miles from where I live). He was an engineer first and
foremost, IMHO.

The Aerospace Engineering building that Purdue built after I left (I
took classes in Grissom Hall) is named after him. He's kind of a legend
at Purdue, being their most famous astronaut/graduate.

And that's another reason why we don't look to the individual in order to get the final answer on what that person's life meant. The only reason the world cares about him is because of Apollo 11. This movie was not made because he was the First Man to cook an amazing dish for his wife using an unusual set of ingredients. And it wasn't even made because he was the First Man to accomplish an orbital rendezvous & docking. The world doesn't care about Gemini 8. History

doesn't care about it, except for a small handful of space geeks.

The only reason the world cares is because he was the First Man. Again:

- The First Man to land,
- The First Man to step, and
- The First Man to plant.

For anyone who wants hard data to back this up, I recommend taking a poll. Ask people around the globe: "What are the top 3 things that Neil Armstrong is remembered for?"

Many, if not most, will say "Neil who?" Then you explain who he was. And that's when people will point to these three things he did.

If Neil were to present his own Top 3 list, it's quite possible that *none* of those events would make it. Look at Thomas Jefferson. On his tombstone he had his Top 3 listed. And you know what did NOT make his list? President of the United States.

Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. Does anyone care about that? He did.


I'm glad you got to the crux of the issue. You, and a lot of other
people (mostly Americans), have gotten their nationalistic knickers in a
knot because the biopic movie about Neil Armstrong didn't show one scene
that you all consider to be essential (because 'Murica?).

Look, everyone on the whole damn planet who accepts the fact that the
moon landings were real also know that it was the Americans who
accomplished that feat. They also know it's not been repeated by any
other nation in the nearly 50 years that followed.

Not putting the flag planting scene in the movie was a choice made by
the writers, producers, and etc. in an attempt to focus on the man Neil
Armstrong. Apparently, we're going to have to agree to disagree on
whether including that scene was essential. It is, after all, a matter
of opinion. There is no hard and fast set of rules for movie making.
Nor should there be. Freedom of expression is a thing, even for movie
producers.

Thanks for the discussion. I'm pretty sure we're done here.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #7  
Old September 10th 18, 10:11 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

From Jeff Findley:
In article ,
says...


snip
JF: "What exactly did Neil Armstrong think of planting the flag? Was it truly one of the defining moments in his life?"

In my own one-on-one discussions with Neil, I never asked him that.

But he has given interviews where he gives a clear impression that he
didn't want his life defined by *anything* he did on Apollo 11.


I'll agree with that. The actual evidence supports the assertion.

He was also a professor at the local university (University of
Cincinnati) as well as living in a smallish town outside Cincinnati
(about 10 miles from where I live). He was an engineer first and
foremost, IMHO.

The Aerospace Engineering building that Purdue built after I left (I
took classes in Grissom Hall) is named after him. He's kind of a legend
at Purdue, being their most famous astronaut/graduate.


I also have very strong connections to Purdue myself, going back several decades. And I had returned for a visit back in 2016. Grissom Hall actually has excellent displays honoring Roger Chaffee along with Gus. A very nice touch. I would have liked to have seen some tribute to Gene Cernan. If the EE Dept did something, I missed it. Several years back, the Stewart Center had an excellent display dedicated to both Armstrong & Cernan, but this was temporary, Oct 3, 2014 - Feb 27, 2015.

As for Armstrong Hall, that building is far more than just named after him. The lobby is like a Neil Armstrong Museum, with a full-sized X-20 and Apollo Command Module hanging from the ceiling. For anyone who has not been there to see it in person, I highly recommend it. (The capsule is actually billed as a replica of "Apollo 1", so presented as a tribute to Grissom & Chaffee as two other Boilermaker Apollo astronauts.)

Many photos of the building show the statue of Neil sitting out front, but by the statue there are also a set of concrete moonboot prints. These clearly communicate that the reason why Purdue remembers him is because of his First Steps. His statue is encircled with his First Words.

Maybe in his own mind "he was an engineer first and foremost". But in just about everyone else's mind, no one remembers him for that. He is remembered as a test pilot and an astronaut.

....and that leads to a little known fact about NAA. He did not attend any formal test pilot school until *after* he left NASA. Long after Apollo 11.

If Damien Chazelle accurately documents this in his movie, I will be utterly shocked. Key facts about Neil Armstrong don't fit the standard narrative of Neil Armstrong. It was not until the 1970s that NAA attended test pilot school, and this was NTPS in Mojave, not Edwards AFB. And his classmate there was Ellison Onizuka (who was 16 years younger than him).

And it will also be very interesting to see how Chazelle relates *how* Armstrong got to be first. I see Slayton's "luck of the draw" mantra to be utterly bogus. If Chazelle presents an accurate story, he will show how Armstrong had gotten the coveted assignment of being the CB rep for the LLRV/TV program way back in 1964, roughly four years prior to the announcement of Armstrong's assignment as Apollo 8 backup CDR, let alone his subsequent assignment as A11 CDR.

Can historical accuracy be expected from the movie First Man? I will remain open to being surprised in the case that it is.

snip
The only reason the world cares is because he was the First Man. Again:

- The First Man to land,
- The First Man to step, and
- The First Man to plant.

For anyone who wants hard data to back this up, I recommend taking a poll.
Ask people around the globe: "What are the top 3 things that Neil
Armstrong is remembered for?"

Many, if not most, will say "Neil who?" Then you explain who he was. And
that's when people will point to these three things he did.

If Neil were to present his own Top 3 list, it's quite possible that *none*
of those events would make it. Look at Thomas Jefferson. On his tombstone
he had his Top 3 listed. And you know what did NOT make his list?
President of the United States.

Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. Does anyone care about
that? He did.


I'm glad you got to the crux of the issue. You, and a lot of other
people (mostly Americans), have gotten their nationalistic knickers in a
knot because the biopic movie about Neil Armstrong didn't show one scene
that you all consider to be essential (because 'Murica?).


I initiated this thread after waiting more than a week after it hit the headlines, posting here with the expressed purpose of pointing out that the movie could have depicted the factual event of the flag being BLOWN DOWN during blastoff from the lunar surface, and you conclude that what is motivating my comments is Murca nationalism? Hardly the first time that my comments here have been misconstrued. That would probably be somewhere in the 3-to-4 digit range of how many times that has happened to me here.

It is the exact opposite for someone to promote movie depiction of the US flag being blown down. That event was in no way, shape or form patriotic or nationalistic. It is an event that can be seen as being symbolic of American decline or even ruin.

I did not raise this topic out of any desire to discuss the merits of including or not including the flag planting. I have very clearly stated that I don't see that to be a topic worthy of debate. It is such a central fact to the Apollo 11 mission, and to the most important aspects of Neil Armstrong's life, that I've expressed in no uncertain terms that this is a non-starter.

Had the UN flag been raised that day, or even if it had been a Nazi swastika flag, my point would remain unchanged. The event of raising that flag would be in the Top 3 things that NAA accomplished in his life, from the historical perspective.

Look, everyone on the whole damn planet who accepts the fact that the
moon landings were real also know that it was the Americans who
accomplished that feat. They also know it's not been repeated by any
other nation in the nearly 50 years that followed.

Not putting the flag planting scene in the movie was a choice made by
the writers, producers, and etc. in an attempt to focus on the man Neil
Armstrong. Apparently, we're going to have to agree to disagree on
whether including that scene was essential. It is, after all, a matter
of opinion. There is no hard and fast set of rules for movie making.
Nor should there be. Freedom of expression is a thing, even for movie
producers.


The scene was omitted out of desire to focus on NAA as a person? Neil was the one who did the flag planting. That scene serves to emphasize his accomplishments as a person. I don't see how, in any way, it would detract from telling his life's story.

Thanks for the discussion. I'm pretty sure we're done here.


Thank you too.

Even if you are finished with sharing your own views, it is clear to me that the story of Neil Alden Armstrong is FAR from being told completely. A thorough movie about his life would have an audience leaving the theater with a solid understanding of how he got to become the first person to do what he did.

I just now looked up the full cast from the movie:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641...=tt_cl_sm#cast

It does not list any credit for anyone portraying Paul Bikle. In seeing that, I now have *zero* expectation that we're going to be given a complete story on Armstrong's life and how he got to do what he did. Because his relationship with FRC Director Paul Bikle was CENTRAL to the choice assignments Armstrong got.

Chazelle either did not do his research, or he just decided to do a fluff piece.

THIS is the relationship that is KEY to understanding Neil Armstrong's superlative life accomplishments:
https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Ph.../E66-16107.jpg
(NAA w/Paul Bikle)

His close friendship with Paul Bikle was key to him becoming an X-15 pilot (among other choice assignments during his time at Edwards under Bikle), and it was key to him getting assigned as astronaut lead for the LLRV/TV program, and his subsequent expertise on the LLRV/TV program was key to him getting assigned as Commander for the first lunar landing mission.

It would be excellent if someone some day were to make a movie that told NAA's story in a complete way.

~ CT
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The American flag-factories loves flag-burners? Ksuvo Misc 1 October 19th 13 02:40 PM
The American flag-factories loves flag-burners? Ksuvo Misc 0 October 19th 13 02:33 PM
NASA's overlooking US space history -- the Skylab repair EVAs (1973) Jim Oberg History 4 December 22nd 04 09:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.