Belton Ag said:

---

JRC0811 said:

---

claym711 said:

---

Hard Pass.

You'll start learning not to piss off the natives when you need their money. What a flop.

---

What's the context for this statement?

---

https://deadline.com/2018/10/what-words-cost-first-man-quite-a-lot-1202482492/

---

Directly from the article you linked:

"First Man, from Universal and DreamWorks among others, opened to about $16.5 million in ticket sales at the domestic box office. That's $4.5 million short of expectations that were pegged at around $21 million. At the Venice Film Festival in late August, Gosling, who is Canadian, spoke about 100 words in defending the flag-planting omission. "I don't think that Neil viewed himself as an American hero," he said: "From my interviews with his family and people that knew him, it was quite the opposite. And we wanted the film to reflect Neil."

Got ya. I can see the outrage. Humbleness is a sign of weakness, am I right?

k20dub said:

---

Did y'all actually see the movie?

Outside of the flag planting "controversy", there were several American pride moments shown throughout the movie.

---

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been wanting to see it at the Air and Space Museum if they're playing it on the big IMAX. This has been the movie I'm most excited to see this Fall, so far.

That it's losing money to people who can't think for themselves and are following this "anti-American Exceptionalism" narrative is sad, but that's the way of the world now.

JRC0811 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

JRC0811 said:

---

claym711 said:

---

Hard Pass.

You'll start learning not to piss off the natives when you need their money. What a flop.

---

What's the context for this statement?

---

https://deadline.com/2018/10/what-words-cost-first-man-quite-a-lot-1202482492/

---

Directly from the article you linked:

"First Man, from Universal and DreamWorks among others, opened to about $16.5 million in ticket sales at the domestic box office. That's $4.5 million short of expectations that were pegged at around $21 million. At the Venice Film Festival in late August, Gosling, who is Canadian, spoke about 100 words in defending the flag-planting omission. "I don't think that Neil viewed himself as an American hero," he said: "From my interviews with his family and people that knew him, it was quite the opposite. And we wanted the film to reflect Neil."

Got ya. I can see the outrage. Humbleness is a sign of weakness, am I right?

---

That wasn't the problem. It was the whole "it's a human achievement" (rather than American achievement) that pissed most people off.

k20dub said:

---

Did y'all actually see the movie?

Outside of the flag planting "controversy", there were several American pride moments shown throughout the movie.

---

I saw the movie on Saturday.

JRC0811 said:

---

k20dub said:

---

Did y'all actually see the movie?

Outside of the flag planting "controversy", there were several American pride moments shown throughout the movie.

---

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been wanting to see it at the Air and Space Museum if they're playing it on the big IMAX. This has been the movie I'm most excited to see this Fall, so far.

That it's losing money to people who can't think for themselves and are following this "anti-American Exceptionalism" narrative is sad, but that's the way of the world now.

---

So people who aren't seeing it "can't think for themselves". Nice.

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

In one of your previous posts you state that Armstrong's personality isn't very accurate in the movie. Armstrong's sons, Rick and Mark, disagree:

Quote:

---

Like millions of other people around the world, on July 20, 1969, Rick and Mark Armstrong watched Apollo 11's moon landing on the television set in their living room. But for those two boys aged 12 and 6 at the time it was their Dad who was taking humanity's first steps on another world 49 years ago.
And now that new generations will be able to experience Neil Armstrong's historic steps through the new movie First Man, the Armstrong boys are extremely happy and pleased that people will get to know their father as they know and remember him, instead of the way he has been characterized over the years.

"First Man really captures Dad's personality," said Mark in an interview with Universe Today, "but more than that, it captures the personality of both our parents. It was really important for us from the beginning that the filmmakers tell the story the way we remembered it and the way it really happened."

---

https://www.universetoday.com/140197/what-neil-armstrongs-sons-really-think-about-the-movie-first-man/

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

Quote:

---

Speaking to TheWrap, screenwriter Josh Singer said: "For Jim, after spending two years pursuing Armstrong and spending hours interviewing him and Janet [his wife] and his sister and everybody else, Jim started to get the idea that maybe Neil left something personal on the moon."

He added: "Leaving tokens on the moon for loved ones or lost ones was something that was regularly done. So Jim started to wonder if Neil left anything that belonged to Karen behind and started looking through the manifest for Neil's personal property kit and Neil said he had lost it."

Armstrong, alongside Buzz Aldrin played in the film by Corey Stoll are both known to have taken personal kits to the moon, although Armstrong "never released any information about the contents of his PPK."

He told The New York Times: "The idea for it did actually come from the historical record. Not that there's a specific record of an object he left behind on the moon of Karen's, but the parameters around it we do know that Neil went off for about 10 minutes by himself, without being on comms or transmitting anything, to stand by this crater. And we know he brought at least one or two personal items that he did not disclose what they were.

"People that were close to him, specifically his biographer Jim and Neil's sister, June, who Ryan and I spent some time with up in Ohio, hypothesised that he may have very well brought something that reminded him of Karen that he left on the moon."

Singer maintained that he wouldn't have included such a scene had Hansen not theorised that he could have brought one of his daughter's belongings with him.

He continued: "If Jim [Hansen], who studied Neil for years and talked to Neil for hours and hours, and talked to Janet and June and everyone in his family. If he ... based on what he knew of Neil after all that time and based on all his interviews with everyone else said 'I think I this happened. I think he left something of Karen's on the moon' ... I was like 'All right, if it's good enough for Jim, it's good enough for me.'"

Chazelle stated that the fact Armstrong never confirmed what he brought with him "makes [the moment] even more beautiful."

---

Sounds like they specifically went over this with the biographer and family and used their input to put it in the movie. Whether or not it's true, who knows...

Swing and a miss.

also, his PPK is at Purdue and under seal until 2020. Will be interesting when it's opened up.

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

In one of your previous posts you state that Armstrong's personality isn't very accurate in the movie. Armstrong's sons, Rick and Mark, disagree:

Quote:

---

Like millions of other people around the world, on July 20, 1969, Rick and Mark Armstrong watched Apollo 11's moon landing on the television set in their living room. But for those two boys aged 12 and 6 at the time it was their Dad who was taking humanity's first steps on another world 49 years ago.
And now that new generations will be able to experience Neil Armstrong's historic steps through the new movie First Man, the Armstrong boys are extremely happy and pleased that people will get to know their father as they know and remember him, instead of the way he has been characterized over the years.

"First Man really captures Dad's personality," said Mark in an interview with Universe Today, "but more than that, it captures the personality of both our parents. It was really important for us from the beginning that the filmmakers tell the story the way we remembered it and the way it really happened."

---

https://www.universetoday.com/140197/what-neil-armstrongs-sons-really-think-about-the-movie-first-man/

---

A) Mark was 6 during the moon landing. He has no way of remembering a damn thing about his father's personality back then. Rick was 12 but he said that didn't remember details, such as whether he really did shake his father's hand like that after their talk. The movie pulled that out of their ass just like the bracelet thing. (which further promotes the robot thing).

B) The movie portrayed Armstrong as a aloof even to his co-workers. Rick and Mark have no valid input on that. And several of Armstrong's peers are already on the record stating that the movie deviates from the man they knew.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

Quote:

---

Speaking to TheWrap, screenwriter Josh Singer said: "For Jim, after spending two years pursuing Armstrong and spending hours interviewing him and Janet [his wife] and his sister and everybody else, Jim started to get the idea that maybe Neil left something personal on the moon."

He added: "Leaving tokens on the moon for loved ones or lost ones was something that was regularly done. So Jim started to wonder if Neil left anything that belonged to Karen behind and started looking through the manifest for Neil's personal property kit and Neil said he had lost it."

Armstrong, alongside Buzz Aldrin played in the film by Corey Stoll are both known to have taken personal kits to the moon, although Armstrong "never released any information about the contents of his PPK."

He told The New York Times: "The idea for it did actually come from the historical record. Not that there's a specific record of an object he left behind on the moon of Karen's, but the parameters around it we do know that Neil went off for about 10 minutes by himself, without being on comms or transmitting anything, to stand by this crater. And we know he brought at least one or two personal items that he did not disclose what they were.

"People that were close to him, specifically his biographer Jim and Neil's sister, June, who Ryan and I spent some time with up in Ohio, hypothesised that he may have very well brought something that reminded him of Karen that he left on the moon."

Singer maintained that he wouldn't have included such a scene had Hansen not theorised that he could have brought one of his daughter's belongings with him.

He continued: "If Jim [Hansen], who studied Neil for years and talked to Neil for hours and hours, and talked to Janet and June and everyone in his family. If he ... based on what he knew of Neil after all that time and based on all his interviews with everyone else said 'I think I this happened. I think he left something of Karen's on the moon' ... I was like 'All right, if it's good enough for Jim, it's good enough for me.'"

Chazelle stated that the fact Armstrong never confirmed what he brought with him "makes [the moment] even more beautiful."

---

Sounds like they specifically went over this with the biographer and family and used their input to put it in the movie. Whether or not it's true, who knows...

Swing and a miss.

---

So clearly, the biographer and family were A-okay with deviating from reality for drama purposes. This helps my point, not harms it.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTm said:

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

Quote:

---

So clearly, the biographer and family were A-okay with deviating from reality for drama purposes. This helps my point, not harms it.

---

No, it clearly contradicts what you initially posted that I highlighted in bold. It's a movie. Usually creative liberty really deviates from a story....this one was actually researched and discussed with those surrounding the project and based off a logical theory. I know that isn't good enough for you in your "obtuse beyond beliefe" routine.

But don't let me get in the way of you now transitioning to "this should have been filmed as a historical documentary and if anything didn't go the way I envisioned it my mind as a kid who grew up around NASA, then it's wrong because Hollywood libs"

---

No, my point since the movie came our are this:

1) The movie is boring as hell.
2) The movie pulled crap like the bracelet out of their ass
3) The movie made him more robotic than he was (especially to his co-workers)

Whether the latter two are because the movie took liberties on their own, or because they got prior approval from the family to take those liberties doesn't matter.

Sounds to me as if you're proving ATM's point. There is not a shred of evidence about the bracelet; the makers of the movie invented it based on the wishful, poetic thinking of the author of the book. That's a hypothetical based on another hypothetical, and the movie presents it as fact. That bothers ATM. It might not bother others.

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

In one of your previous posts you state that Armstrong's personality isn't very accurate in the movie. Armstrong's sons, Rick and Mark, disagree:

Quote:

---

Like millions of other people around the world, on July 20, 1969, Rick and Mark Armstrong watched Apollo 11's moon landing on the television set in their living room. But for those two boys aged 12 and 6 at the time it was their Dad who was taking humanity's first steps on another world 49 years ago.
And now that new generations will be able to experience Neil Armstrong's historic steps through the new movie First Man, the Armstrong boys are extremely happy and pleased that people will get to know their father as they know and remember him, instead of the way he has been characterized over the years.

"First Man really captures Dad's personality," said Mark in an interview with Universe Today, "but more than that, it captures the personality of both our parents. It was really important for us from the beginning that the filmmakers tell the story the way we remembered it and the way it really happened."

---

https://www.universetoday.com/140197/what-neil-armstrongs-sons-really-think-about-the-movie-first-man/

---

A) Mark was 6 during the moon landing. He has no way of remembering a damn thing about his father's personality back then. Rick was 12 but he said that didn't remember details, such as whether he really did shake his father's hand like that after their talk. The movie pulled that out of their ass just like the bracelet thing. (which further promotes the robot thing).

B) The movie portrayed Armstrong as a aloof even to his co-workers. Rick and Mark have no valid input on that. And several of Armstrong's peers are already on the record stating that the movie deviates from the man they knew.

---

Are you suggesting that Armstrong died during that mission or that his personality changed dramatically thereafter because I'm pretty sure his two boys spent decades with their dad after the mission was over. It would be far fetched to say his core personality changed dramatically over his lifetime.

---

No, I'm suggesting that it's very difficult for Rick and Mark to remember what happened 50 years ago from the context of 50 years ago. People tend to remember the past through the lense of today. I remember my grandmother, not as she was when I was 6-12, but what she looked like before she died. Likewise, it makes sense that Rick and Mark's memory of 50 years ago, are somewhat tainted by the subsequent failed marriage. Especially when the father is a workaholic and admittedly did not spend enough time at home with their kids. Kids in such situations typically gain the point of view of their mother. But not being there is different than being a robot like the movie portrayed.

Also, people interact with their co-workers differently than they interact with their family. The movie portrayed him as robotic to everybody he interacted with.



Compare the press conference in the movie with the real one. Gosling came off like robotic jerk. The real Neil Armstrong, though technical in his answers, was actually cordial and made the room laugh on occasion. Go look at Armstrong's subsequent interviews. He came off like a guy that any of us would want to have a beer with. Gosling's character came off as a tightass that nobody could be friends with.

Heisenberg01 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

So you haven't seen the book or obviously read the book. The book discusses how he never mentioned taking anything personal to the moon, and then the author discusses how beautiful it would have been if he had taken Karen's bracelet and it is so so personal that he never told anyone. It was a complete hypothetical in the book that they incorporated into the movie. Your bias is one thing, but passing off that you have an accurate view of the movie or book is displaying your ignorance. Your close mindedness needs to be back to the politics board.

---

This is the board of the two that tries to shut people up that it doesn't agree with. This is the board of the close minded.

I wouldn't mind seeing that real press conference, do you have a link to a video?

I do think some people are viewing the character as robotic, while others see him as bottled up. I didn't actually interpret the performance as the former, but as the later. I thought there was so much emotion bubbling under the surface in what I saw, so perhaps we can just agree that we saw things differently in the film in that regard.

There were also lots of scenes where he was playing with the kids and was quite warm, and lots of scenes with him laughing and hanging with his co-workers. The movie covers roughly 8 or 9 years with a focus on his grief, they were not trying to sum up the man in 2 hours.

Saw it last night. Thought it was good not great. Even though the scope was massive, I felt more blown away after watching Whiplash and La La Land than First Man. Still, given Chazelle's youth and small directing experience this is an incredible accomplishment.

What I liked: I liked the focus on Neil as person and his personal journey, I just don't think it was executed incredibly well.

What I didn't like: The sequences focused mainly inside the cockpit. They were good and it definitely made me feel like I was in the cockpit it was just too much. Like I got the concept after a few seconds, but it just lingered on shaky shots of faces, gauges, and buttons. Almost felt like they couldn't afford to create more outside shots of the ship so they had to focus more inside the cockpit.

Heisenberg01 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Heisenberg01 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

mallen said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

You can pick apart any movie, and especially biopics, if you don't like them.

In my view, he was not presented as an emotional robot. He was just dealing with grief and didn't know how to share that with anyone. Gosling's performance was amazing at showing how he was on the verge of emotion all the time, IMO.

I get that this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, however. I just don't think the filmmakers were as careless with Armstrong's story as they are being accused of on this thread.

---

I agree that is what the movie was trying to portray (for dramatic purposes), but disagree on it being reality. He was presented as aloof in the movie, but was from what I have read, was nothing like that in real life.

---

Hmm...Neil's family and biographer were consulted heavily during the making of the movie. Particularly, his two sons were heavily involved. They all signed off on the overall portrayal of Armstrong. I think am going with the family's view over an anonymous TexAgs poster.

---

The biography and family said nothing about Armstrong tossing his daughter's bracelet into a crater. So clearly the film took liberties beyond their input.

---

So you haven't seen the book or obviously read the book. The book discusses how he never mentioned taking anything personal to the moon, and then the author discusses how beautiful it would have been if he had taken Karen's bracelet and it is so so personal that he never told anyone. It was a complete hypothetical in the book that they incorporated into the movie. Your bias is one thing, but passing off that you have an accurate view of the movie or book is displaying your ignorance. Your close mindedness needs to be back to the politics board.

---

This is the board of the two that tries to shut people up that it doesn't agree with. This is the board of the close minded.

---

Could be the most outrageous claim I've ever seen on Texags and that is certainly saying something.

---

I guess you haven't been paying attention recently.

Fun fact: The New Yorker called this movie an "accidental right wing fetish object"

And yet here we are

Thanks for posting this.

IDK...I feel like Gosling really nailed this. Also, Corey Stoll did great at Buzz Aldrin.

veryfuller said:

---

Thanks for posting this.

IDK...I feel like Gosling really nailed this. Also, Corey Stoll did great at Buzz Aldrin.

---

NP.

I wish we could post clips from the movie for comparison. But it seems to me Gosling was answering the questions like he was Bill Belichick. The way Gosling's version answered the one about wanting more fuel almost seemed angry. Where I don't get that feeling from the real Neil Armstrong press conference at all. The real Neil Armstrong smiled, said funny things, and whatnot. His answer to where he'd like to take vacation after he returned and about what he would do if he encountered some sort of animal caused the room to laugh. I can't think of anything funny that Gosling's version said the entire movie.


Edit: And I should mention that Buzz Aldrin was angry about his portrayal in this movie. He didn't like how he came off as a jackass. Maybe he really was a jackass, I'm not sure about that.