Not just because of the backlash, but because it was a seminal moment in the lives of everybody involved.Bruce Almighty said:
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.
***FIRST MAN (Ryan Gosling, dir.Damien Chazelle)
68,214 Views |
533 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by TexAggie5432
The current cultural paradigm is to denigrate and dismiss American accomplishments (e.g., "America was never that great") particularly targeting Euro-Americans.
While it may seem silly and childish to some and in and of itself the absence of the flag raising in a movie has no real significance; however, in the greater context of the hysterical backlash against American history, I choose to not reinforce the current behavior-in whatever form it takes.
While it may seem silly and childish to some and in and of itself the absence of the flag raising in a movie has no real significance; however, in the greater context of the hysterical backlash against American history, I choose to not reinforce the current behavior-in whatever form it takes.
“We don't have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have government of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.”
-Milton Friedman
-Milton Friedman
Please tell me you at least understand the deeply ironic use of the term "hysterical backlash" in this instance.
Are people responding "hysterically," in your view, to this film?TCTTS said:
Please tell me you at least understand the deeply ironic use of the term "hysterical backlash" in this instance.
I wouldn't know. I have not read through the thread nor have I been following any related news.
If "this instance" is referring to my stance, then you are wrong. I have solely stated that I perceive removal of the flag in broader context of the current sociopolitical climate, and I don't support that.
“We don't have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have government of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.”
-Milton Friedman
-Milton Friedman
No one is responding hysterically to the film itself that I know of. Definitely not among those who have actually seen it. What many in this thread and the pearl clutchers in general are responding hysterically to is the ridiculous "controversy." I was merely pointing out that you were using "hysterical backlash" to describe Hollywood's apparent anti-Americanism when the backlash to the "controversy" (and thus Hollywood's apparent anti-Americanism) is just as hysterical, if not more.
I was not using "hysterical backlash" to describe Hollywood.TCTTS said:
No one is responding hysterically to the film itself that I know of. Definitely not among those who have actually seen it. What many in this thread and pearl clutchers in general are responding hysterically to is the ridiculous "controversy." I was merely pointing out that you were using "hysterical backlash" to describe Hollywood's apparent anti-Americanism when the backlash to the "controversy" (and thus Hollywood's apparent anti-Americanism) is just as hysterical, if not more.
I was, again, referring to the current sociopolitical climate nationwide (e.g., tearing down statues of historical figures, condemning founding fathers and other notables from history, etc.).
Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
Edits for minor grammatical corrections.
1 more edit-the California girl arrested for throwing a classmate's 'Make America Great Again' hat and slapping her teacher. The attitude I am referring to has permeated every level of society and I view each contributing factor in the aggregate.
“We don't have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have government of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.”
-Milton Friedman
-Milton Friedman
Several more thoughts:
1.If the director had included a scene depicting the plant of the flag, it might have caused me to actually want to see his film. Instead, his personal politics have driven me away from the box office.
2. Landing on the moon, planting a flag of victory, and bringing them home is an immense source of pride for me and for others like me. Even if my own, personal, involvement was minimal. You can never take that away from me. Sorry if my pride in our country doesn't fit your agenda.
3. The United States of America won the race to the moon against our biggest competitor, the USSR. While we won that immediate race, civilization was the long-term winner. There is not a man, woman or child alive today that has not received at least some indirect benefit from the discoveries made during the space race. It's too bad we, as country, do not have a common goal like that President Kennedy challenged us with. Our "leaders" have failed to lead by failing to challenge us to do more than we think is possible.
4. History is what it is. Don't try and re-write to be what you might want it to be. You don't like the history? Then help avoid the same mistakes we've made in the past.
Thanks for letting an old man reminisce and holler at some clouds. I'll go back to the baseball board now.
1.If the director had included a scene depicting the plant of the flag, it might have caused me to actually want to see his film. Instead, his personal politics have driven me away from the box office.
2. Landing on the moon, planting a flag of victory, and bringing them home is an immense source of pride for me and for others like me. Even if my own, personal, involvement was minimal. You can never take that away from me. Sorry if my pride in our country doesn't fit your agenda.
3. The United States of America won the race to the moon against our biggest competitor, the USSR. While we won that immediate race, civilization was the long-term winner. There is not a man, woman or child alive today that has not received at least some indirect benefit from the discoveries made during the space race. It's too bad we, as country, do not have a common goal like that President Kennedy challenged us with. Our "leaders" have failed to lead by failing to challenge us to do more than we think is possible.
4. History is what it is. Don't try and re-write to be what you might want it to be. You don't like the history? Then help avoid the same mistakes we've made in the past.
Thanks for letting an old man reminisce and holler at some clouds. I'll go back to the baseball board now.
It's as if you haven't read a single word in this thread other than the ones you were predisposed to agree with. So much of this isn't even remotely the reality in terms of the filmmakers' motivations.
This has got to be one of the dumbest controversies I've ever heard of.
Another possible reason for not including or emphasizing the flag raising is greed. Big movies now make more money overseas than domestically. I'm not saying it's a good reason, and it's better than having two versions, but it's a reason that has nothing to do with politics.
Except, for the hundredth time, the flag is shown to be on the moon in the movie, and all throughout the movie itself. There's even a "dramatic" shot of a flag in the trailer. If the filmmakers wanted to "erase patriotism" as a means of making more money globally, why *keep* patriotism in the other 99% of the movie? Why make the movie at all? Nothing about this conspiracy theory makes any sense, given the context.
have you heard about the guy running for Senate going by his nicknamebobinator said:
This has got to be one of the dumbest controversies I've ever heard of.
Is that a controversy? I haven't heard of that one.
Damien Chazelle interview
Read this interview. Gives some great insight into the movie and the current flag discussion.
Read this interview. Gives some great insight into the movie and the current flag discussion.
Quote:
In the last couple of days, controversy has flared up over your decision not to show Armstrong planting an American flag on the moon. Were you surprised when this came up, or did you consider as you were planning out that part of the film that some people might feel that moment should be in there?
Chazelle: I mean, it surprised me because there are so many things that we weren't able to focus on not only during the lunar EVA [extra-vehicular activity] but in the entirety of Apollo 11. Just by the nature of the story we were telling, we just couldn't go into every detail. So our through-line became especially at this part of the movie where it's the final emotional journey for Neil what were the private, unknown moments of Neil on the moon?
The flag was not a private, unknown moment for Neil. It's a very famous moment and it wasn't Neil alone. We included the famous descent down the ladder because that's him alone, literally first feeling what it's like to be on the moon. But other than that, we only wanted to focus on the unfamous stuff on the moon. So we don't go into the phone call with Nixon, we don't go into the scientific experiments, we don't go into reentry, et cetera.
What was important to us was that mysterious 10 minutes that Neil spent alone at the Little West crater, the walk that he took to that crater separate from Buzz [Aldrin] during which time, of course, we wanted to look back and see the flag standing proudly by the LEM [lunar excursion module], which we showed in several shots. Neil never really talked about what he did at that crater or what he was thinking about. And in terms of the process of being on the moon, I think we were exclusively interested in the private and the less knowable.
See. The director is smart and knows how to answer the question in a way that is understandable, non-political, and respectful.
The idiot Gosling who makes a living saying other people's words could learn when to keep his personal politics to himself and not harm the movie. He's Ron Burgandy - as smart as the writer putting words in his mouth.
This movie looks awesome. And it's a shame that the fool Gosling will keep some people at home.
I swear the M:I 6 IMAX preview of the Apollo launch was an out of body experience for me. I was actually terrified by the power of the launch. No way I'm going to miss this movie in IMAX.
The idiot Gosling who makes a living saying other people's words could learn when to keep his personal politics to himself and not harm the movie. He's Ron Burgandy - as smart as the writer putting words in his mouth.
This movie looks awesome. And it's a shame that the fool Gosling will keep some people at home.
I swear the M:I 6 IMAX preview of the Apollo launch was an out of body experience for me. I was actually terrified by the power of the launch. No way I'm going to miss this movie in IMAX.
TCTTS said:
It's as if you haven't read a single word in this thread other than the ones you were predisposed to agree with. So much of this isn't even remotely the reality in terms of the filmmakers' motivations.
Only in your opinion. Most of us view the removal of the planting to be political and any of the arguments presented so far dont follow logic.
I don't view it that way at all.
What doesn't follow logic is ignoring the other 99% of the movie that DOES prominently include patriotic themes/paraphernalia/ideals, yet thinking the filmmakers are somehow trying to stick it to patriotic conservatives by not simply showing the flag being planted at the very end, considering the director has now come forward twice to explain exactly why that specific moment is not in the movie, for reasons he has made clear have absolutely nothing to do with politics. That is what literally makes no sense and takes conspiracy-level thinking to believe. I mean, it's just laughable at this point that we're still even arguing over it.
No one here has yet to explain how making a patriotic movie about the moon landing, featuring all kinds of patriotic themes/paraphernalia/ideals, is somehow not patriotic because it doesn't show the actual action of the flag being planted. How do you square in your mind that the filmmakers aren't patriots, when the entire rest of the movie is touted and portrayed as a patriotic endeavour by the filmmakers? What do you ascribe to be the filmmakers' motivation in undertaking such a paradoxical, nonsensical tactic?
Chazelle even specifically mentions that "we wanted to look back and see the flag standing proudly by the LEM [lunar excursion module], which we showed in several shots." I mean, he's literally saying that there's a grand shot specifically focused on the flag in the moment of triumph on the moon, at the end of the movie.
So the filmmakers are disrespecting... America?... by honoring and crediting... America... not only throughout the movie, but in the very end as well? Yet because they leave out the physical act of planting the flag, but still show the flag in multiple shots on the moon, and specifically highlight the flag in a grand shot of patriotic achievement... they're liberal globalist who want to discredit America's role in America's achievement?
What???
No one here has yet to explain how making a patriotic movie about the moon landing, featuring all kinds of patriotic themes/paraphernalia/ideals, is somehow not patriotic because it doesn't show the actual action of the flag being planted. How do you square in your mind that the filmmakers aren't patriots, when the entire rest of the movie is touted and portrayed as a patriotic endeavour by the filmmakers? What do you ascribe to be the filmmakers' motivation in undertaking such a paradoxical, nonsensical tactic?
Chazelle even specifically mentions that "we wanted to look back and see the flag standing proudly by the LEM [lunar excursion module], which we showed in several shots." I mean, he's literally saying that there's a grand shot specifically focused on the flag in the moment of triumph on the moon, at the end of the movie.
So the filmmakers are disrespecting... America?... by honoring and crediting... America... not only throughout the movie, but in the very end as well? Yet because they leave out the physical act of planting the flag, but still show the flag in multiple shots on the moon, and specifically highlight the flag in a grand shot of patriotic achievement... they're liberal globalist who want to discredit America's role in America's achievement?
What???
Haven't "bothered" to see it? Not everybody is a *****bag movie reviewer who can see movies early. Nobody was criticizing this movie as anti-patriotic until Gosling made that stupid statement. The idea that the criticism is unfounded is a load of BS.
This thread
Sure it's unfounded, if you haven't seen the movie.aTmAg said:
The idea that the criticism is unfounded is a load of BS.
Really? Did you think more than 10 seconds prior to posting that?double aught said:Sure it's unfounded, if you haven't seen the movie.aTmAg said:
The idea that the criticism is unfounded is a load of BS.
Do I have to have tried heroin to criticize it as bad? Do I have to have watched the Birdemic movie to do the same?
It is a acknowledged fact that: 1) the flag planting scene is omitted and that 2) Gosling was reported as saying that Armstrong's achievement "transcended countries and borders". Both alone are worthy of criticism whether I have seen the movie or not.
Could it possibly be that I've read & studied everything you've written very carefully and do not agree with you? Just because you've put it in print doesn't necessarily make it true.
I have the same right to decline your drivel like you've apparently done mine.
The exchanges, however, do make it fun.
I have the same right to decline your drivel like you've apparently done mine.
The exchanges, however, do make it fun.
Nice straw man, but it doesn't really hold up. Heroin and Birdemic are nearly universally agreed upon to be bad things (Never thought I'd write that sentence). First Man is far from that because, if for no other reason, hardly anyone has seen it!aTmAg said:Really? Did you think more than 10 seconds prior to posting that?double aught said:Sure it's unfounded, if you haven't seen the movie.aTmAg said:
The idea that the criticism is unfounded is a load of BS.
Do I have to have tried heroin to criticize it as bad? Do I have to have watched the Birdemic movie to do the same?
It is a acknowledged fact that: 1) the flag planting scene is omitted and that 2) Gosling was reported as saying that Armstrong's achievement "transcended countries and borders". Both alone are worthy of criticism whether I have seen the movie or not.
As far as we know, the entire movie could revolve around how kick-ass America is. But you would still condemn it as being anti-American because it doesn't actually show Neil hitting the top of the flagpole with a hammer? I'd say that's unfounded criticism.
The flag actually got knocked over as they ascended from the surface. If Chazelle leaves that out, does it cancel out the other omission?
Is The Patriot to be condemned because it doesn't show Cornwallis surrendering at Yorktown? How about Saving Private Ryan not featuring the Allies advance into Germany? No, of course not, because these movies are about the characters. War is the setting. Similarly, First Man is (apparently, because I too haven't seen it) about American hero Neil Armstrong. His journey to the moon is the setting.
I don't know. This all just seems like faux outrage and virtue signaling, which there is way too much of these days. But hey, I've been wrong before.
This is the worst thread of all time. Unfortunately it continues to rage on because a few posters can't handle not having a last word or attempting to rub salt into perceived wounds.
I don't know, and really, don't care. But maybe if Gosling had kept his dumbass mouth shut this would not have turned into a controversy. If we are being honest, his dumbass commentary literally sounds like he is chalking up the moon landing to a bunch of world citizen BS. Avoid that and this argument is not taking place. IMO.
I like movies
Since you clearly have not read what I have been saying...double aught said:Nice straw man, but it doesn't really hold up. Heroin and Birdemic are nearly universally agreed upon to be bad things (Never thought I'd write that sentence). First Man is far from that because, if for no other reason, hardly anyone has seen it!aTmAg said:Really? Did you think more than 10 seconds prior to posting that?double aught said:Sure it's unfounded, if you haven't seen the movie.aTmAg said:
The idea that the criticism is unfounded is a load of BS.
Do I have to have tried heroin to criticize it as bad? Do I have to have watched the Birdemic movie to do the same?
It is a acknowledged fact that: 1) the flag planting scene is omitted and that 2) Gosling was reported as saying that Armstrong's achievement "transcended countries and borders". Both alone are worthy of criticism whether I have seen the movie or not.
As far as we know, the entire movie could revolve around how kick-ass America is. But you would still condemn it as being anti-American because it doesn't actually show Neil hitting the top of the flagpole with a hammer? I'd say that's unfounded criticism.
The flag actually got knocked over as they ascended from the surface. If Chazelle leaves that out, does it cancel out the other omission?
Is The Patriot to be condemned because it doesn't show Cornwallis surrendering at Yorktown? How about Saving Private Ryan not featuring the Allies advance into Germany? No, of course not, because these movies are about the characters. War is the setting. Similarly, First Man is (apparently, because I too haven't seen it) about American hero Neil Armstrong. His journey to the moon is the setting.
I don't know. This all just seems like faux outrage and virtue signaling, which there is way too much of these days. But hey, I've been wrong before.
I have not stated that the movie is anti-American. It could be, but I don't know that yet. Just that the movie is worse than otherwise could have been if they had included one of the most profound moments of the entire mission and Armstrong's life.
I have also criticized Goslings statement about the "achievement transcending countries and borders" because that is idiotic.
Both of the above indicate that perhaps the movie makers do not really understand the nature of what we were doing. That they missed out on the essence of the whole endeavor. That perhaps the movie is worse than it otherwise would have been had they understood.
Agreed 100%Urban Ag said:
I don't know, and really, don't care. But maybe if Gosling had kept his dumbass mouth shut this would not have turned into a controversy. If we are being honest, his dumbass commentary literally sounds like he is chalking up the moon landing to a bunch of world citizen BS. Avoid that and this argument is not taking place. IMO.
Then don't open it. Pretty easy solution.Bunk Moreland said:
This is the worst thread of all time. Unfortunately it continues to rage on because a few posters can't handle not having a last word or attempting to rub salt into perceived wounds.
" One small step for an Ohioan, one giant leap America"
Is that what he said?
If you read the way the director talks I also wonder if this statement is in there. He says he is focusing on the things we "don't " remember from this. Everyone remembers what he said, but no one remembers the walk down the ladder which the director does focus on( he states it.) This has to do with the focus of the film. Armstrong being the reluctant hero. Although if I were the director I probably would have put the flag planting in the film but it basically be in the background to other things.
Is that what he said?
If you read the way the director talks I also wonder if this statement is in there. He says he is focusing on the things we "don't " remember from this. Everyone remembers what he said, but no one remembers the walk down the ladder which the director does focus on( he states it.) This has to do with the focus of the film. Armstrong being the reluctant hero. Although if I were the director I probably would have put the flag planting in the film but it basically be in the background to other things.
We all remember the launch. Does that mean that he refrained from showing that too? If so, then it will be a worse movie than otherwise. Ditto (to a lesser degree) with the flag planting.
We are going to see Apollo 11 launch from the point of view of Armstrong mostly which is what we hadn't seen. I bet 75-80% will be inside the capsule but that doesn't mean we won't see some of the launch ( which is my point to the flag plant)aTmAg said:
We all remember the launch. Does that mean that he refrained from showing that too? If so, then it will be a worse movie than otherwise. Ditto (to a lesser degree) with the flag planting.
Same with the group of them in the room ( I think it is apollo 8) the point was the reaction of the men and the building for that matter to the launch, not the launch.
The Saturn-V launch is a spectacle that very few have seen and no movie has done right, IMO (not Apollo 13). If they only show Apollo 8 from 4 miles away and Apollo 11 from inside the capsule, then they will have squandered a great opportunity to finally do it right. Frankly, since we cannot feel G-forces from the theater nor have any fear that we might blow up, the launch from Armstrong's point of view is somewhat boring. I'm hoping that they do it right and that theater speakers can finally handle it.Brennus said:We are going to see Apollo 11 launch from the point of view of Armstrong mostly which is what we hadn't seen. I bet 75-80% will be inside the capsule but that doesn't mean we won't see some of the launch ( which is my point to the flag plant)aTmAg said:
We all remember the launch. Does that mean that he refrained from showing that too? If so, then it will be a worse movie than otherwise. Ditto (to a lesser degree) with the flag planting.
Same with the group of them in the room ( I think it is apollo 8) the point was the reaction of the men and the building for that matter to the launch, not the launch.
Featured Stories
See All
UntoldSpirit
WARNING FOR COMFORT SUITES ON TEXAS FOR FOOTBALL SEASON
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
25