hey safer here let's just say first man was awesome it's about time to in the age of computer-generated imagery how have there not been more grounded space movies there are only four other historical space films and they are all hey geographies I mean I love Apollo 13 and the right stuff is fun if a bit overblown at times can't say much about October sky and can't say much good about hidden figures this movie on the other hand is quite different its enigmatic and procedural rather than bombastic and triumphal which may have scared some moviegoers and critics away it tackles tougher questions than any previous film and does so with all the ambiguity it can muster so I get why it wasn't a huge success but ambiguity is desperately needed in Hollywood especially with over glorified histories such as this and Neil Armstrong the main character was perfectly suited to this kind of storytelling as part of paying for his college degree Neil Armstrong became a naval pilot he fought in Korea even having to eject when his wing got sheared off returning to Purdue he completed his BS degree in aeronautical engineering and went straight to a job as a test pilot in 1955 with the NACA which was the predecessor to NASA so he flew a bunch of cool stuff including the x-15 which is still the reigning air speed champion as such he'd already been to the edge of our atmosphere it was a famously dangerous vehicle and Armstrong had one of the craziest flights where he basically ballooned off the atmosphere throughout his test pilot career he had a few close calls such as when he had to fly in a Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas Nevada after having his radio hurts by an abortive landing at a dry lakebed the landing at Nellis was botched so NASA sent another pilot to pick him up and that landing was botched they sent a third pilot to pick up the other two and that guy failed as well so Nellis was like you guys are driving back so they had to literally go by land all the way back to Edwards freaking brilliant Armstrong managed to jump ship over to NASA's astronaut program as part of the second group to be trained in 1962 he resigned from the Naval Reserve in 1960 so he was a civilian in 1962 one of the few civilian astronauts his first flight was of Gemini 8 it was a docking test and seemed to go well but a thruster started firing randomly and they got into an uncontrollable spin Armstrong managed to stay awake long enough to be able to undock and write the craft immediately aborting the mission so on his first mission in space he proved his ability to think on the spot the Gemini missions were specifically meant to prepare for the Apollo program which was eventually going to go to the moon but disaster struck with Apollo 1 [Applause] the crew burnt alive in the cockpit unable to escape the capsule it was the greatest disaster in Apollo history and it was literally the first Apollo so that delayed things and jumbled everything up a little bit including making Armstrong the captain of the eventual moon landing they trained up for it while several Apollo missions were flown before them with two orbiting the moon then Apollo 11 finally landed filling Kennedy's go Armstrong was the first out the hatch and on to the surface while Buzz Aldrin came out second they took old about on the surface for two and a half hours though they were on the surface inside the lander for another nineteen including sleeping on the moon after that they took off in whren davood with michael collins in lunar orbit once they splashed down in the Pacific Ocean they were quarantined for 21 days just in case of they weren't infected with anything but nobody knew what was on the moon at the time a state dinner in Los Angeles and I wanna know where you come it was time to celebrate the spotlight was especially strong on Armstrong he was never much of a talker and didn't seem to care about the fame so he turned to teaching instead of doing anymore spaceflights but he remained involved in NASA stuff like the inquiry into Apollo 13 though he retired in 1971 the Moon program continued until Apollo 17 in 1972 with a total of six landings Armstrong continued to work at the University of Cincinnati but he soon took on brand deals and served on a number of company boards that money was far better so he resigned from the University in 1980 generally he kept to himself and some even thought of him as a recluse the reclusive astronaut Neil Armstrong but he was still active in public until his death in 2012 biographies of Neil Armstrong or histories of the space race aren't exactly difficult to come by in fact the depths have pretty much been plumbed the book this is based on is just one of many and having read it not really all that interesting to be honest luckily along with all of that NASA itself was ready and willing to help this production they offered reams of material and had their own historians as advisors there isn't much deeper to go besides taking on new subjects and the arguments made thus far are merely speculative gap-filling rather than anything a substance this is pretty homogeneous history Armstrong himself was always straightforward and a man of few words his first wife once told reporters silence is Neil's answer the word no is an argument the guy was simply the silent professional type enigmatic but dependable even with his family where it may not have been so welcome the limelight put a strain on things for sure but he just kept chugging along if you think about it he's actually pretty easy for biographers to capture accurately since you don't really have to establish too much character besides that silent professionalism as I said at the beginning this film is fantastic why it's a shoo-in for best of the year they really capture Armstrong in this with biographies that's the most important part of the narrative characterization but this goes beyond mere biography we get a sense of the problems of Space Flight other films basically tell their stories as though the mishaps are freak accidents and that the whole thing was like a bunch of cowboys riding rockets into space yeehaw that's just not how anyone experienced it though sure these were a bunch of privileged jocks but riding a rocket is not like riding a horse this movie captures how NASA was constantly on the brink every time we get in launch capsule there's horror music here the creaking and rattling of everything as miscellaneous lights flash they're warning sights no flight in NASA's early history went without a hitch there were always problems and the cacophony of takeoff was just as fearful as reentry in fact in terms of actual history takeoff has been more dangerous than re-entry yet movies typically depict reentry as the scarier thing well this film actually is arguing against that yeah the film is making an argument it also shows some context in a way that no other film has really done we hear the escalation of the Vietnam War on television screens in the movies background and its height we even hear a rendition of the spoken word song whitey on the moon that song was actually released a year after a Poe 11 and this whole protest that they're showing is more based around Apollo 14 which had a protest exactly like this and that's one of the few inaccuracies but it is a perfect encapsulation of the reality that most Americans thought the Apollo program was a waste of money with 60% polled in 1969 saying exactly that we shouldn't so easily forget that but you'll see folks speaking about NASA as though it was a great unifier the distribution of money that you're spending is worked in some way that you are removing the only thing that gives people something to dream about tomorrow when it was anything but that in reality the song whitey on the moon also shows black power which was on the rise at the time while none of NASA's astronauts were people of color or even women sure nasa was desegregated when it came into being in 1958 unlike what hidden figures would have you believe there at NASA we all play the same color but that does not mean there wasn't an entrenched culture that had to be overcome in a way this film about a white astronaut is able to more accurately portray the problem of race in NASA then a movie about three black women so it's a minor anachronism to put so much emphasis on the whitey on the moon song but if you dislike that minor effect just imagine this playing instead but when you return that's what's particularly powerful about this film since Armstrong was so enigmatic he's a perfect vessel for grasping a larger story we can read ourselves in his village when we see emotion in him in his more as a proxy for the audience like take the seat we need to fail down here so we don't fail up there at what cost huh well it's a little bit late for that question is he sir here he's just crushed the lunar landing research vehicle and the weight of all the NASA casualties up until that point are starting to weigh on him did he actually say something like that not to my knowledge and it seems a little out of character but at the same time it's feasible that he did and we benefit from the conversation this is the crux of the film not the landing itself the moon landing of course is excellently done and serves as the payoff for all the troubled procedural drama beforehand I do have to say there are two inaccuracies here first is that they were not that low on fuel during powered descent they were incredibly low in reality but that crater they jump is added for special effect just look at where they landed in reality and you'll see I think they're just exaggerating this crater right here but either way that doesn't match the real moon landing this stuff of course is difficult to approximate since even shadows are significantly different from Earth think of all the CGI that went into making this look realistic like that's probably the reason why this movie hasn't been made before we straight-up couldn't fake the moon landing well enough contrary to idiots on the internet the other inaccuracy is the bracelet for Armstrong's deceased daughter in the film he drops a bracelet in a crater whereas he actually named the crater after her it's possible that the bracelet was in his personal kit and he never told anyone since he didn't like to speak about those kinds of things but this is the film simply trying to breathe some emotion into the guy it's not really a narrative problem since he didn't name a crater Muffy so it's just an addition to visually signify what actually happened the Apollo mission left all kinds of artifacts on the moon from memorial discs with goodwill messages from most world leaders except communist nations of course to family mementos akin to the one shown and it does close a character arc since the movie is basically arguing that he was so emotionally guarded because of his daughter's death but then overall interpretation is at least arguable so let's move on to the final thing to talk about which is the other characters Buzz Aldrin was rather annoyed by the name first man since both he and Armstrong were on the moon at the same time in the movie he's portrayed as ostentatious and brash which may be a bit of an exaggeration but only by a little it's tough to get everything correct besides I haven't read about any complaints from Buzz Aldrin himself though who knows if he's actually watched the movie everyone else seems to be well played in terms of character it is far and away better than the caricatures we get in the right stuff and in Apollo 13 we don't really get characters at all which I'm fighting with Apollo 13 is definitely a good movie but I'm leaning to liking this one more he really shows what Hollywood could do in the future like I'd love to see more space movies that aren't fictional and this is setting us up in the right direction there are so many good stories to tell and they don't have to Center on the moon landings we've done other things like I know Russia just did one on Yuri Gagarin maybe Hollywood could adapt that we've got shuttles billionaires racing each other and space stations there's so much to do and I think we've pretty much shown that we can do space movies now with CGI pretty well get on it Hollywood heck what about other kinds of exploration there's more to it than making terrible renditions of Columbus's voyages imagine seeing Zhang Jian's mission expeditions into sub-saharan Africa even Battuta travels Musa the firsts Hajj the circumnavigation of the earth Hillary and Tenzing summiting Everest or whatever the list is never-ending how is all that not movie material Hollywood's right in the path of one of the longest peaceful conquests in history yet their only movie about the Portola expedition confuses it with Coronado from two centuries prior like they don't even have to go anywhere to film they just literally have to climb a hill or something maybe take the train to Monterey or something there's so many possibilities then again it's surprising it took this long to get an Apollo 11 film in the first place it's about damn time we choose to go to the moon and do the other thing before the decades is out not because it is easy but because it is hard don't move for three days in Spruce but when you get back at zero please bear you

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. 3:25 – Technically they died of asphyxiation (thx Isaac Schmitt)
    For the commenters complaining about not including the flag planting: 1) the flag is explicitly shown as you can see 2) we don't need to see every part of a 2 hour EVA 3) if you're worried "how political correctness crept into the film," I will firmly say: You are the one in denial of the political realities of that time and now. It is rather hilarious to think of an omission as inserting politics.

  2. privileged jocks mf you try strapping your self into a a tin can that propels it self by literal
    explosions in a era where abort systems were unreliable and then will see who's a privileged jock

  3. The movie should have been titled; 'The Angry Astronaut.' Everyone in this film was so tense and mad, that it looked more like a documentary on the Soviet space program than the American one.

    The film is at it's best in showcasing the absolute dangers and ordeals of space exploration, especially during the Gemini missions, but Ryan Gosling's portrayal of Neil Armstrong was of a man, who was in a constant state of brooding pain. His demeanor, throughout the movie was grim and dour. His character was incapable of smiling or laughing, except for a few flashbacks prior to the death of his daughter. There was little camaraderie between him and the flight crews and even less with his wife and sons.

    Other astronauts fared little better and Buzz Aldrin came off as little more than a cynical asshole. HBO's 'From Earth to the Moon' was a far more just portrayal of the astronauts, especially Bryan Cranston's take on Buzz Aldrin.

    Although the moon landing scenes were phenomenal looking and very tense, one gets the sense that Neil Armstrong went there all by himself, brooded for a moment over an empty crater, then went home. The historic moon landing felt more like a tense war drama, where he was on a suicide mission to plant a bomb behind enemy lines, then plant a flag for all mankind.

    There was zero sense of elation, history or teamwork. Yes, there were plenty of critics and controversies surrounding the lunar program, especially when it came to funding and motivation. Many Americans of the time, saw it as pork barrel jingoism on par with the Vietnam war itself. But all patriotism aside, even a brief scene of Neil and Buzz planting a flag together would have eased the emotional tension of the film considerably and allowed everyone in the cast and audience, a moment to breathe a sigh of accomplishment.

  4. "There are only 4 other historic space films" Nope, there are only 4 other historic space films from the USA!
    Lately, there where some impressive eastern space docodramas:

    Gagarin: First in Space
    Salyut 7
    First Orbit

  5. nice! first thing i saw on your channel and i'm loving it. even hit that bell, which i rarely ever do. i am a giant space nerd and the fact that everyone goes hysteric about every of elon musks, or jeff beyos brainfarts, sickens me. all we actual know about space was found by either a telescope, or a probe. there are three places in the solar system, with a high chance of finding life. a shoebox sized probe would be all it needs, to find out. but everyone rather keeps fantasizing about 'mars colonalization', repeating arguments, that became invalid in the past two decades like 'to cold', 'no water, no live', and even the few things that appear always manage to take the least realistic approach, like drilling thru an ice shield hundreds of kilometers thick, instead of just probing the plumes, europa is so friendly to squirt out all by itself, or sending a 'submersible' to titan, instead of sending the damn shoebox it would actually take. even NASA keeps choosing missions based on 'popular demand' rather than on scientific consense, like the third rover to mars, or sending on of the most expensive missions ever, to get a one hour window for taking a couple of pictures, because hey… everyone loves pluto!

  6. One thing I get a little miffed about is when people say "…Armstrong was chosen to lead the first lunar landing…". This is NOT correct. Deke Slayton always maintained the rule: any astronaut can fly any mission.

    Deke set up a general crew rotation systems: back up a flight, miss two flights, fly as prime.

    In early 1968, it became apparent that the original Apollo 8 mission – Earth orbit testing of the LM – would not be possible because of delays with the LM. Around the same time, the CIA reported the existence of the Soviet N-1 rocket, the counterpart to the US Saturn V. There was talk of the Soviets making a Moon shot: not landing but doing a slingshot around the Moon. This might even be possible with the Proton launcher. The Soviets could say they had "beaten" the US to the Moon.

    Parts of the NASA hierarchy asked the question: if we can't fly the LM, could we send the CSM on a lunar mission? Quiet – even secretive – study showed the answer was yes. A decision was made to send Apollo 8 to the Moon.

    But who would be the crew of Apollo 8? The original crew had trained for the LM mission; to change to a lunar mission would entail increased training burden in such a short time. The Apollo 9 crew, however, had only just started their training… and they were meant for a very high Earth orbit mission to test lunar-distance comms and procedures. To change them to a lunar orbit mission was not a big ask.

    And so the crews of Apollo 8 & 9 swapped missions, with the original 9 crew – Borman, Lovell & Anders – now flying Apollo 8. When the prime crews switched, the backup crews also swapped.

    And that meant the first man to walk on the Moon would NOT be a Navy Lieutenant Commander called 'Pete' Conrad but a civilian named Neil Armstrong.

    Fate chose Armstrong, not NASA.

  7. Another great video. I enjoyed the movie. Though you referred to the astronauts as entitled jocks. I’m not sure that’s accurate. My experience most jocks get business degrees. Not engineering. They typically don’t have the discipline for this course. Lol. Keep them coming.

  8. Excellent as always fella. Whenever I see you've made a new video I look forward to viewing and I have yet to be disappointed. The research you obviously do must take hours!
    Well done and keep up the great work.

  9. I really don't like the "…and do the other things…" part in JFK's speech. It always feels like "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do some other shit, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…" to me.

  10. Its fair to say the moon landing WAS a great unifier, it even briefly thawed the cold war, but the continued Apollo program wasn't nearly as inspiring. Also in the lead up to Apollo 11 many people weren't confident it would happen and/or couldn't imagine the impact.

  11. worst movie ive seen in years and so boring. and great man history is distorts perspective and context of the people and society around it.

  12. I don't think you have watched The Right Stuff recently, that was a terrible overview of the movie. Nothing wrong with a little Romanticism when it comes to period flicks.

  13. The moon landing wasn't shot with CGI. They shot it in a quarry at night and used a big light to simulate the sun. Everything you see is really there. And to add in the epicness, they shot on IMAX.

  14. As a space buff, I was thoroughly disappointed in the movie. There were a lot of inaccuracies in the scenes involving spaceflight. For example, during launch & ascent, it gets smoother the higher up you get, due to the atmosphere getting thinner & thinner. When Gemini 8 launches, the vibration is EXCESSIVE right before the booster (Titan II) cuts off at orbital insertion. In reality, the ride was super smooth at that point (in general, the Titan II launch vehicle was very smooth in it´s boost phase, and a WHOLE LOT smoother than the 1st stage of the Saturn V) . There´s other stuff such as the Apollo Command Module being dirty, when in real life, it was squeaky clean. There were just a lot of things that they could have gotten right due to all the documentation that´s readily available . The LM (Lunar Module) didn´t have a display counting down the percentage of fuel left in the descent stage as shown in the movie, the movie also fails to show how Neil & Buzz had to close a circuit with a pen due to one of them breaking off a rocker-switch whilst egressing the LM (for the Lunar EVA), if they hadn´t done it, the LM wouldn´t have launched from the surface.

    Also, I don´t think Goslings portrayal of Armstrong was accurate at all. His way of speaking doesn´t even resemble Neil Armstrong at all, which is sort of weird, since the movie is about HIM, and not necessarily the Apollo Program.

    Aside from certain creative liberties (in order to create tension & drama) in Apollo 13, Tom Hanks did a FAR BETTER job at portraying James A. "Jim" Lovell than Ryan Gosling did portraying Neil Armstrong. Just watch the part in Apollo 13 where they send TV footage from the CM & LM down to Houston and compare it with the real broadcast (you can find it all here on youtube) .

    As a space buff, I was thoroughly disappointed.

  15. An interesring story is the First Buenos Aires expedition. It was the Titanic of the Conquistadores

  16. Calling the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts “privileged jocks” is quite a disservice.
    Most were born in small, depression-era towns (often in Ohio!) to middle or lower middle class families, with plumbers, teachers as parents. They reached their goals through sheer discipline and hard work.

  17. My old middle school got renamed after buzz Aldrin bc he went there. He spoke at the opening. Total creep.

  18. There are so many interesting accidents in space that could make great movies too in terms of drama. The Mir had a couple that would be interesting.

  19. There is an Ibn Batuta Film I've seen but it's not a high budget film. I think it's somewhere online, like Vimeo.

    This subject as a high budget film and some accurate pirate history films of North Africa would be high on my watch list.

  20. I absolutely hated this movie. It was depressing, mean spirited, inaccurate and misunderstood the character of Neil Armstrong completely. It was a character assassination of the man, and it portrayed NASA as incompetent and reckless. It focused only on the negative aspects of the political and cultural climate of the 1960's. It was badly shot, badly edited, had unrealistic sets, unrealistic sound design, and portrayed spaceflight as a horrific experience in which the astronauts were unwilling and largely ineffectual participants. Apollo 13 is still the definitive Apollo era movie, and The Right Stuff is still the definitive Mercury era movie. Those movies convey the truth. First Man conveys lies.

  21. I am thinking it would have been better to have said Armstrong managed to remain concious over to stay awake during t Gemini-8 incident.

  22. "Hidden Figures" was such an emotionally manipulative and revisionist film. While I appreciate it for its performances and technical filmmaking, its historical value is almost zilch, which is a shame because that is a story that could have been so much more impactful if it had been grounded in historicity.

  23. I wonder what Stanley Kubrick would've thought of regarding all these space movies that came long after 2001 ASO had his life not cut short…… We can only guess I suppose

  24. Ooh, quick correction. The Apollo One astronauts weren't burned alive, but were suffocated as the fire drew all the air into it.

    Gus Grissom was one of my Grandma's cousins and I did an oral report on him in the third grade. Suffice it to say, I may have gone into further detail than my teacher would have preferred.

  25. Typical Americans bitch about all the money the government spends going to the moon. Not the money the spent on the war in Korea or the Vietnam war going or what under cover war going on at that. Those are too big a price tag America always got money for war but not for other things.

  26. Are you kidding me??? It didn't flop because it "tackles tougher questions…". As perhaps the worlds biggest Apollo buff, I couldn't WAIT to see this movie. Unlike the reviewer here, I LOVED the book and had read it 4 or 5 times  by the time the movie came out. Then I heard about what I feared most…. how political correctness had crept into the film, especially regarding not showing the flag planting (but other PC things too). Now before I get blasted for saying this, there is a reality that has to be faced. Lots of people, lots, I mean LOTS refused to see it because of this. I have never seen it despite all the waiting I did for it because frankly, I am getting sick and tired of Hollywood shoving their views down my throat. Just make a damn movie and stop trying to "teach me a lesson in humility" with every single thing that comes out of your studios. Perhaps one day someone will make a movie about one of the lunar landings without having to ADD fake things like staring at the moon during liftoff (it wasn't up then plus the BPC was still on the Command Module so he couldn't see out of the front window) or tossing a bracelet into a crater, and then LEAVING OUT things that really did happen, like the flag planting. (Even if you are an America hater the reality is that it DID happen. If you were around for the real thing it was that flag going in the ground that caused EVERYBODY to gasp or tear up, or get emotional….thats the scene everybody around then still remembers. Not showing that is like not showing the Titanic hit the iceberg in a Titanic movie).

  27. In recent years Russia made several Movies about their Space Program.
    Like "The Age of Pioneers" which is about Alexei Leonow and Voskhod 2.
    Are you planning any "Based on a true Story" for those ?

Related Post