Well the reason we went to the moon was not to plant a flag, so they didn't get the true essence of the mission wrong if they didn't focus upon that. If you don't like the artistic direction of the film, that's a valid critique and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you recognize it was not done to make a political point.aTmAg said:I was not aware of any such controversy with Dunkirk.Belton Ag said:My guess is that if they had decided to go all in for a political point, then they'd just admit it up front. There's no reason to think any of them are lying about it.aTmAg said:
I realize that the director and others are denying it, but many of us are wondering if they are honest in those denials or if are merely trying to spin their way out of it to keep any sort of boycott from happening.
It's just an artistic direction, not a political statement. It's similar to how Nolan handled Dunkirk last summer.
I think that if they merely left out the flag scene for artistic reasons, then they don't really understand the true essence of the entire endeavour. It would be like leaving out any mention of Kevin Costner's dad in Field of Dreams, 9/11 in Zero Dark Thirty, the wedding shootout from Kill Bill, etc. National pride was the central motivation of every person working on the project. The planting of the flag was the culmination of all of that.
***FIRST MAN (Ryan Gosling, dir.Damien Chazelle)
68,273 Views |
533 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by TexAggie5432
Believe me, my dad worked at NASA right after that and planting the flag was a HUGE part of it. Just like every explorer in history planted their national flag upon reaching new lands, we WERE going to plant our flag on the moon. If they had a weight problem they would have removed plenty of stuff to make room for that flag. If they had oxygen problems and the only O2 they had left were 30 minutes in their suits to sustain them, then they still would have planted that flag.Belton Ag said:Well the reason we went to the moon was not to plant a flag, so they didn't get the true essence of the mission wrong if they didn't focus upon that. If you don't like the artistic direction of the film, that's a valid critique and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you recognize it was not done to make a political point.aTmAg said:I was not aware of any such controversy with Dunkirk.Belton Ag said:My guess is that if they had decided to go all in for a political point, then they'd just admit it up front. There's no reason to think any of them are lying about it.aTmAg said:
I realize that the director and others are denying it, but many of us are wondering if they are honest in those denials or if are merely trying to spin their way out of it to keep any sort of boycott from happening.
It's just an artistic direction, not a political statement. It's similar to how Nolan handled Dunkirk last summer.
I think that if they merely left out the flag scene for artistic reasons, then they don't really understand the true essence of the entire endeavour. It would be like leaving out any mention of Kevin Costner's dad in Field of Dreams, 9/11 in Zero Dark Thirty, the wedding shootout from Kill Bill, etc. National pride was the central motivation of every person working on the project. The planting of the flag was the culmination of all of that.
Planting the flag means a LOT more than sticking a pole with fabric attached into the ground. It's all the symbolism that it entails that matters.
I don't disagree with you at all, and you're kind of making my point by mentioning the pole and fabric, and I'm going to watch the movie to see if they miss out on any of the true essence of the lunar mission. What I am telling you for the third time is that the omission was not a political point.
You can't reason with him. I've tried, many times. Everything is political in his mind. And once his mind is made up, there is absolutely no changing it.
I'm not even talking politics. Good Lord. I'm talking about the decision to leave out an important aspect of three mission out of the movie.TCTTS said:
You can't reason with him. I've tried, many times. Everything is political in his mind. And once his mind is made up, there is absolutely no changing it.
He's passionate about his beliefs and I respect that. For myself, I had an uncle that worked for NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center and was one of the people who helped develop the Lunar Roving Vehicle for the Apollo missions that came just after Apollo 11. I loved to hear some of his stories about his time there and I miss him a lot. I can understand why the flag planting omission could be a big deal, but all one needs to do is listen to the what the director said to be assured it's not political. Part of the problem is some of the froufrou rhetoric about transcending borders, etc.TCTTS said:
You can't reason with him. I've tried, many times. Everything is political in his mind. And once his mind is made up, there is absolutely no changing it.
My point is even if the omission is not political, they missed an important part out of the story. Sir Edmund Hillary only spent a few minutes on top of Everest and carried very little, but one thing me made damn sure to carry and display was the Union Jack. The flag is far more important than mere fabric.Belton Ag said:
I don't disagree with you at all, and you're kind of making my point by mentioning the pole and fabric, and I'm going to watch the movie to see if they miss out on any of the true essence of the lunar mission. What I am telling you for the third time is that the omission was not a political point.
I'm inclined to believe the director at the moment. I just think he might have dropped the ball on this aspect of the story.
I think gosling's comments were misconstrued and this is been blown out of proportion a bit. I think the planting of the flag should've been in it but it does appear that they have the flag in it several times.
So did Gosling purposefully sabotage the film (perhaps some strategy to help its award chances) or did he simply put his foot in his mouth?
Belton Ag said:
I don't disagree with you at all, and you're kind of making my point by mentioning the pole and fabric, and I'm going to watch the movie to see if they miss out on any of the true essence of the lunar mission. What I am telling you for the third time is that the omission was not a political point.
Are you really that naive?
They are trying to make a accurate account of the moon landing and they leave out the motivation behind the endeavor? You do realize the space race was political?
Despite the modern lefts worldview: the free world won the space race. And the country that has been the greatest source for good for the last century put their flag up to declare this frontier was won by lovers of liberty, not slavery and subjugation.
Making this event a victory for "mankind" means it's a victory for those who hold the worst ideals too. That is the flaw of humanism. It is idealistic for the dolts who love it and blind to it's obvious shortcomings.
They didn't show the flag being planted because of their extreme US guilt. I'm surprised the flag even made an appearance at all.
You're the person who's belaboring a point that we now know has nothing at all to do with this movie. By all means continue on...The Debt said:Belton Ag said:
I don't disagree with you at all, and you're kind of making my point by mentioning the pole and fabric, and I'm going to watch the movie to see if they miss out on any of the true essence of the lunar mission. What I am telling you for the third time is that the omission was not a political point.
Are you really that naive?
They are trying to make a accurate account of the moon landing and they leave out the motivation behind the endeavor? You do realize the space race was political?
Despite the modern lefts worldview: the free world won the space race. And the country that has been the greatest source for good for the last century put their flag up to declare this frontier was won by lovers of liberty, not slavery and subjugation.
Making this event a victory for "mankind" means it's a victory for those who hold the worst ideals too. That is the flaw of humanism. It is idealistic for the dolts who love it and blind to it's obvious shortcomings.
I am offended that the flag was omitted from this movie.
When I was a very young man (late teens), I worked for a NASA contractor as a mechanical draftsman. Yep, T-squares, electric erasers, etc.
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
Of the many projects I worked on, it was a pretty simple plan: to showcase the fact that the USA had the manpower to get what seemed to be an otherwise impossible job done. It was the USA that did it, not the USSR with whom we were engaged in a race to get to the moon first.
I can tell you, first hand, planting the flag was on purpose and it meant something to all of us that it was the American flag that was ultimately planted.
This young punk director needs to go back and learn some real history. I don't need/want him to re-write history for me. I don't need/want his politics. As much as I think I would enjoy the movie, I don't think I'll be spending my money unless the flag is planted as history was originally written.
When I was a very young man (late teens), I worked for a NASA contractor as a mechanical draftsman. Yep, T-squares, electric erasers, etc.
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
Of the many projects I worked on, it was a pretty simple plan: to showcase the fact that the USA had the manpower to get what seemed to be an otherwise impossible job done. It was the USA that did it, not the USSR with whom we were engaged in a race to get to the moon first.
I can tell you, first hand, planting the flag was on purpose and it meant something to all of us that it was the American flag that was ultimately planted.
This young punk director needs to go back and learn some real history. I don't need/want him to re-write history for me. I don't need/want his politics. As much as I think I would enjoy the movie, I don't think I'll be spending my money unless the flag is planted as history was originally written.
mwm said:
I am offended that the flag was omitted from this movie.
When I was a very young man (late teens), I worked for a NASA contractor as a mechanical draftsman. Yep, T-squares, electric erasers, etc.
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
Of the many projects I worked on, it was a pretty simple plan: to showcase the fact that the USA had the manpower to get what seemed to be an otherwise impossible job done. It was the USA that did it, not the USSR with whom we were engaged in a race to get to the moon first.
I can tell you, first hand, planting the flag was on purpose and it meant something to all of us that it was the American flag that was ultimately planted.
This young punk director needs to go back and learn some real history. I don't need/want him to re-write history for me. I don't need/want his politics. As much as I think I would enjoy the movie, I don't think I'll be spending my money unless the flag is planted as history was originally written.
This movie is about Armstrong and everything that led him to walking on the moon
It isn't about the space race.
Sorry, there is no way this movie can be viewed without the context of the space race.
At first, i was a little frustrated that they left the flag out.- Whatever, still looked good so i thought id still go see it.
However, im not so sure now. Its clear this was done out of spite or some other negative feeling towards the usa.
At first, i was a little frustrated that they left the flag out.- Whatever, still looked good so i thought id still go see it.
However, im not so sure now. Its clear this was done out of spite or some other negative feeling towards the usa.
For the people who worked at NASA at the time, it was 100% about who could get our people to the moon and bring them back. It was about meeting the challenge of President Kennedy to beat the USSR in the space race. There's nothing wrong with a little national pride and planting the flag on the moon was a part of showing that pride.
If a WW2 movie about Iwo Jima was created and it left out the raising of the flag, would that be okay with you to leave that event out? Wasn't that event a significant part to show the battle was won?
If you decide the movie is about something else, that's okay with me. We can still be friends on the baseball board.
If a WW2 movie about Iwo Jima was created and it left out the raising of the flag, would that be okay with you to leave that event out? Wasn't that event a significant part to show the battle was won?
If you decide the movie is about something else, that's okay with me. We can still be friends on the baseball board.
Sure, that much is true. But are you implying that Armstrong, who was first out of the lander, did not in fact plant the American flag?Tanya 93 said:mwm said:
I am offended that the flag was omitted from this movie.
When I was a very young man (late teens), I worked for a NASA contractor as a mechanical draftsman. Yep, T-squares, electric erasers, etc.
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
Of the many projects I worked on, it was a pretty simple plan: to showcase the fact that the USA had the manpower to get what seemed to be an otherwise impossible job done. It was the USA that did it, not the USSR with whom we were engaged in a race to get to the moon first.
I can tell you, first hand, planting the flag was on purpose and it meant something to all of us that it was the American flag that was ultimately planted.
This young punk director needs to go back and learn some real history. I don't need/want him to re-write history for me. I don't need/want his politics. As much as I think I would enjoy the movie, I don't think I'll be spending my money unless the flag is planted as history was originally written.
This movie is about Armstrong and everything that led him to walking on the moon
It isn't about the space race.
Placing the flag on the surface of the moon is a part of Armstrong's story, as well as his well-known statement upon leaving the lander.
And before any one comes along to remind me that the flag is seen, I got that. Great. It does not seem to me to be too difficult to have a camera inside the helmet, representing Armstrong's POV, as he retrieves the flag and places it into position. Then pull back so that we can see what he was seeing.
The director of that WWII movie would probably insist that the flag raising atop Mt. Suribachi represented a great achievement for the Allies despite the fact that it was the Marines who put that flag there.Quote:
If a WW2 movie about Iwo Jima was created and it left out the raising of the flag, would that be okay with you to leave that event out? Wasn't that event a significant part to show the battle was won?
mwm said:
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
I want a movie about this.
I'm 100% positive that the macguffin of this story is going to be beating the USSR to the moon and putting men on the lunar surface. I'm also fairly certain, based on the previews and other things I've read, the filmmakers have included lots and lots of imagery and references to the Space Race and the United States' role in it. I'm just not at all convinced that they are disrespecting America and Her achievement. That they don't include the physical act of planting the flag could be an omission that makes the film fall short for many people, that's true.mwm said:
For the people who worked at NASA at the time, it was 100% about who could get our people to the moon and bring them back. It was about meeting the challenge of President Kennedy to beat the USSR in the space race. There's nothing wrong with a little national pride and planting the flag on the moon was a part of showing that pride.
If a WW2 movie about Iwo Jima was created and it left out the raising of the flag, would that be okay with you to leave that event out? Wasn't that event a significant part to show the battle was won?
If you decide the movie is about something else, that's okay with me. We can still be friends on the baseball board.
The more I read about this "controversy" the more I think the biggest problem is Ryan Gosling's response to the issue. He seems rather dense and certainly fundamentally doesn't understand that a HUGE percentage of the audience of a film with this kind of subject matter would care about this issue. The director's response was intelligent and insightful, Gosling's not so much.
As a 19-year old, so much what was going on went well over my head. Looking back, I can't believe I actually worked with such amazing people who were able to accomplish what they did. Brilliant men and women and I was able to walk the hallways with them not really understanding what they were able to achieve. I am genuinely humbled to have played such a small part in what they did.
I remember, on a number of occasions, when, sitting in a large "bullpen" with other draftsmen, an astronaut would enter the room to speak with a particular draftsman. The silence in the room would be deafening in hopes you could hear what they had to say and hope that they would walk behind you and peak over your shoulder to see what you might be working on.
To have been in the physical presence of those real life heroes still, almost 50 years later, leaves me in awe. The sense of pride was, and still is, amazing.
I remember, on a number of occasions, when, sitting in a large "bullpen" with other draftsmen, an astronaut would enter the room to speak with a particular draftsman. The silence in the room would be deafening in hopes you could hear what they had to say and hope that they would walk behind you and peak over your shoulder to see what you might be working on.
To have been in the physical presence of those real life heroes still, almost 50 years later, leaves me in awe. The sense of pride was, and still is, amazing.
I met Danny olivas at cattleman's restaurant in El Paso.
I was shocked at how little my super STEM niece cared about meeting an astronaut. It just wasn't a big deal to her. It was one of those moments when I realized that they are growing up in a completely different world
I was shocked at how little my super STEM niece cared about meeting an astronaut. It just wasn't a big deal to her. It was one of those moments when I realized that they are growing up in a completely different world
That's like making a Patton movie set between 1941 and 1945 and trying to claim that it's not about WW2.Tanya 93 said:mwm said:
I am offended that the flag was omitted from this movie.
When I was a very young man (late teens), I worked for a NASA contractor as a mechanical draftsman. Yep, T-squares, electric erasers, etc.
One of the projects I was assigned to work on, together with a NASA engineer, was the flag and the mechanics of getting it to "wave" when there was no breeze. The engineer came up with a plan that included the rods that held the flag in place and fully unfurled. I was granted the privilege of putting it on paper. The craftsman then put the plan and the paper into reality.
Of the many projects I worked on, it was a pretty simple plan: to showcase the fact that the USA had the manpower to get what seemed to be an otherwise impossible job done. It was the USA that did it, not the USSR with whom we were engaged in a race to get to the moon first.
I can tell you, first hand, planting the flag was on purpose and it meant something to all of us that it was the American flag that was ultimately planted.
This young punk director needs to go back and learn some real history. I don't need/want him to re-write history for me. I don't need/want his politics. As much as I think I would enjoy the movie, I don't think I'll be spending my money unless the flag is planted as history was originally written.
This movie is about Armstrong and everything that led him to walking on the moon
It isn't about the space race.
When Tanya, myself, and others say that this movie isn't "about" the space race, once again, that of course doesn't mean that that angle isn't heavily featured in the movie. The space race is ALL OVER this movie. It's just that, in the end, the THEME of the movie (what it's "about") - because it's told from one man's point of view - is more about what that achievement meant for Armstrong personally than what it meant for the country. That's not to say that the country angle isn't featured or dwelled upon prominently, or that Armstrong wasn't thinking about America in that moment. Again, it doesn't have to be one or the other. This movie can be and do multiple things at once, but in the end, through thick and thin, all great movies stay true to their theme in the climax - the answer to the thesis - and this movie is primarily about what Armstrong himself sacrificed, not what our country sacrificed. Both can co-exist throughout the story, but only one can be present in the moment of the truth. And just because the filmmakers chose to go with Armstrong in that moment of truth doesn't mean that they're not patriotic, or are minimizing America's efforts or what that moment meant to America as a whole.
This thread really delivers. I'm sad I missed all of this.
I guarantee you that the moment they planted that flag was HUGE for Armstrong personally. Probably the top 5 moments in his life. So if this movie was really "all about Armstrong" then it was stupid of them to omit that event.TCTTS said:
When Tanya, myself, and others say that this movie isn't "about" the space race, once again, that of course doesn't mean that that angle isn't heavily featured in the movie. The space race is ALL OVER this movie. It's just that, in the end, the THEME of the movie (what it's "about") - because it's told from one man's point of view - is more about what that achievement meant for Armstrong personally than what it meant for the country. That's not to say that the country angle isn't featured or dwelled on prominently, or that Armstrong wasn't thinking about America in that moment. Again, it doesn't have to be one or the other. This movie can be and do multiple things at once, but in the end, all great movies stay true to their theme in the climax - the answer to the thesis - through thick and thin, and this movie is primarily about what Armstrong himself sacrificed, not what our country sacrificed. Both can co-exist throughout the story, but only one can be present in the moment of the truth. And just because the filmmakers chose to go with Armstrong in that moment of truth doesn't mean they're not patriotic or are minimizing America's efforts or what that moment meant to America as a whole.
Of course it was. I hate to break it to you, but you know what? Thoughts of his family were probably MORE important to him, so that's what the filmmakers went with. Since, you know, they interviewed the family countless times and decided that's the story they wanted to tell... Armstrong weighing the question of whether or not the pursuit of this goal was not only worth losing his family and life over, but the notion that his family could potentially lose him. That's the premise they wanted to explore, and because of that choice, the very nature of storytelling precluded the climax from being about anything other than that.
Yeah. I can see how showing him plant a flag and salute it would make it difficult to tell the story they were going for. No way they could work that in with whatever he was feeling/thinking at the moment.
The goaltending for the director over this glaring omission is frankly pretty ridiculous.
I own From the Earth to the Moon. I've seen their flag raising scene. It's a few seconds and completely uneventful.
This is stupid
This is stupid
Tell that to the families of Grissom, White & Chaffee.
I'd be willing to bet Armstrong had them on his mind.
I'd be willing to bet Armstrong had them on his mind.
They can explore whatever premise they want. It's their movie. If they wanted to dedicate the movie to the nature of Armstrong's bowel movements during that 7 years they could have. But that would be a much worse movie. Likewise, this movie is worse due to this glaring omission based on what, they "choose to explore" instead.TCTTS said:
Of course it was. I hate to break it to you, but you know what? Thoughts of his family were probably MORE important to him, so that's what the filmmakers went with. Since, you know, they interviewed the family countless times and decided that's the story they wanted to tell... Armstrong weighing the question of whether or not the pursuit of this goal was not only worth losing his family and life over, but the notion that his family could potentially lose him. That's the premise they wanted to explore, and because of that choice, the very nature of storytelling precluded the climax from being about anything other than that.
Adding a 5 second clip doesn't add much, but not having it at all means a lot. I get that the movie is about him and not America, but the filmmakers made a mistake not having it because of the potential backlash.
Featured Stories
See All
Slimmer Regis again helps his draft stock at Pro Day
by Olin Buchanan
TexAgs Internship Program
by TexAgs
7:55
10h ago
1.1k
Sights & Sounds: Texas A&M's 2026 Pro Day
by Kaylee Dreyer
9:48
14h ago
1.9k
40:24
11h ago
2.0k
UntoldSpirit
WARNING FOR COMFORT SUITES ON TEXAS FOR FOOTBALL SEASON
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2