'First Man' : my thoughts

[fncceo]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

 

[gtopa1]

Good movies of the Moon Landing.

The Dish : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I may see it when it streams for free somewhere. Word-of-mouth runs from ambivalent to garbage . I believe Rex Reed wrote that the film essentially stars Ryan Gosling's eyelashes due to the overuse of close-ups.

I must disagree as to the level of division in the country compared to the 60s. I lived through it, and at no time were we on the brink of civil war as we are today. Today, someone needs merely to light a match.

The student Socialists who marched against the country in those times are the Democratic Party leaders and Progressives of today, still marching. They masked themselves for awhile, but now the masks are off. They are quite open about their nonsense these days.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

With large TVs and surround sound we just wait until movies are on pay-per-view.
First Man looks like a great film.

 

[MisterBeale]

Best comment, second most popular in the YouTube trailer;

"Hmmm didn't Neil Armstrong make the original movie in 1969"


If they were going to continue making Propaganda, they should have just saved Kubrick's original sets if you were so unhappy with these mock ups.

 

[fncceo]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

Much of what I remember from the late '60s are similar to your memories. I was 11 and wrapped up in my own white (Jewish) suburban neighborhood. I watched TV, I rode my bike, I was a boy scout, and on the cusp of discovering girls. My scoutmaster was an engineer at Edwards AFB and we got to see a lot of behind the scenes of the X-Plane project. I even met Chuck Yeager but had no idea who he was or why my scoutmaster was so in awe of him.

I knew about the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Robert Kennedy (especially close to me as my neighbor's father was a LAPD lieutenant and his camper was used to transport Sirhan Sirhan in secret from the Ambassador Hotel to Police Plaza to avoid the press). I heard my parents and their friends discussing the war. An older boy my sister liked died in Vietnam. But, I was more upset over the cancellation of 'Batman' and 'Star Trek' than the protests, riots, bombings, and assassinations of the '60s.

But, beyond the largely segregated suburbs of LA, there was an entirely different city with people who had problems that I couldn't even begin to understand.

 

[night_son]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

Thanks for the detailed heads-up analysis. We'll avoid it, or use it for our own private Mystery Science Theater 3000.

 

[fncceo]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

Thanks for the detailed heads-up analysis. We'll avoid it, or use it for our own private Mystery Science Theater 3000.

View attachment 223456

I have a much better recommendation for that ...

'First Man' isn't even unintentionally funny.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

Much of what I remember from the late '60s are similar to your memories. I was 11 and wrapped up in my own white (Jewish) suburban neighborhood. I watched TV, I rode my bike, I was a boy scout, and on the cusp of discovering girls. My scoutmaster was an engineer at Edwards AFB and we got to see a lot of behind the scenes of the X-Plane project. I even met Chuck Yeager but had no idea who he was or why my scoutmaster was so in awe of him.

I knew about the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Robert Kennedy (especially close to me as my neighbor's father was a LAPD lieutenant and his camper was used to transport Sirhan Sirhan in secret from the Ambassador Hotel to Police Plaza to avoid the press). I heard my parents and their friends discussing the war. An older boy my sister liked died in Vietnam. But, I was more upset over the cancellation of 'Batman' and 'Star Trek' than the protests, riots, bombings, and assassinations of the '60s.

But, beyond the largely segregated suburbs of LA, there was an entirely different city with people who had problems that I couldn't even begin to understand.

I was late high school.

 

[fncceo]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

Much of what I remember from the late '60s are similar to your memories. I was 11 and wrapped up in my own white (Jewish) suburban neighborhood. I watched TV, I rode my bike, I was a boy scout, and on the cusp of discovering girls. My scoutmaster was an engineer at Edwards AFB and we got to see a lot of behind the scenes of the X-Plane project. I even met Chuck Yeager but had no idea who he was or why my scoutmaster was so in awe of him.

I knew about the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Robert Kennedy (especially close to me as my neighbor's father was a LAPD lieutenant and his camper was used to transport Sirhan Sirhan in secret from the Ambassador Hotel to Police Plaza to avoid the press). I heard my parents and their friends discussing the war. An older boy my sister liked died in Vietnam. But, I was more upset over the cancellation of 'Batman' and 'Star Trek' than the protests, riots, bombings, and assassinations of the '60s.

But, beyond the largely segregated suburbs of LA, there was an entirely different city with people who had problems that I couldn't even begin to understand.

I was late high school.

I hope you got a deferment.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

Much of what I remember from the late '60s are similar to your memories. I was 11 and wrapped up in my own white (Jewish) suburban neighborhood. I watched TV, I rode my bike, I was a boy scout, and on the cusp of discovering girls. My scoutmaster was an engineer at Edwards AFB and we got to see a lot of behind the scenes of the X-Plane project. I even met Chuck Yeager but had no idea who he was or why my scoutmaster was so in awe of him.

I knew about the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Robert Kennedy (especially close to me as my neighbor's father was a LAPD lieutenant and his camper was used to transport Sirhan Sirhan in secret from the Ambassador Hotel to Police Plaza to avoid the press). I heard my parents and their friends discussing the war. An older boy my sister liked died in Vietnam. But, I was more upset over the cancellation of 'Batman' and 'Star Trek' than the protests, riots, bombings, and assassinations of the '60s.

But, beyond the largely segregated suburbs of LA, there was an entirely different city with people who had problems that I couldn't even begin to understand.

I was late high school.

I hope you got a deferment.

Lottery numbers were 'way high!

 

[fncceo]

Saw it last night and have to say, I have notes:

Things I liked:

Something never before even mentioned in a historical space movie, the late '60s was the most turbulent time in American History. If you think the country is divided today, you can't imagine how much more divided it was back in the late '60s Civil rights, Vietnam, and the Space Race all competed for the public's attention and eventually the Space Race lost. 'First Man' gave at least a head nod to the fact that while America was reaching for The Moon, much of America was just trying to get the right to a vote and a job.

They accurately portrayed Armstrong's public persona ... a quiet, effacing man, at least compared to the rest of the astronaut corps who were much more colorful and then some.

Things I didn't like ...

Overall ...

The cinematography ... we get that it happened in the '60s... we're smart people, we don't need a grainy gritty look to the film to remind us. It was the the height of The Space Race, one of the most optimistic times in American History and the last time we celebrated technology for its own sake. Celebrate that.

The soundtrack ... practically non-existent. That there was was plodding and not suited to what was going on the screen. Really, was John Williams not available? I would have rather heard a Danny Elfman soundtrack than music that can only be described as rejects from a bargain bin World Music CD. Movie music is supposed to heighten the action or emotions on the screen, not drag it down.

Dialogue... the one thing that can save the worst movie. You can have crappy photography, terrible music, even C-list actors, but if your dialogue is pithy and evocative, you can still have a good to great movie. Silent Bergman films have more exciting dialogue than 'First Man'

Ryan's portrayal of Armstrong's personality... Look, I get that it's based on Armstrong's book of the same name, but I have my doubts that Armstrong was as introverted and nihilistic in the '60s when he was at the top of the heap of the US Space Program as he was when he wrote the book in 2005. The way we remember our youth is influenced by how we spent our adult life.

Ryan plays Armstrong as a borderline sociopath. The scene where he is forced by his angry wife, virtually dragged by her, to discuss the upcoming moon landing with his sons only minutes before he was set to leave for The Cape. It may be the way Armstrong remembers it, and his children may be too young to accurately recall it, but I have serious doubts it happened that way. NASA was, during the Space Race, the most competitive organization in the world. The top dogs in the Astronaut Corps were monitored closely by NASA doctors not just for how they interacted with each other and NASA engineers, but how they interacted with their families. Time Magazine and CBS News had intimate, invasive access to the astronaut's homes and personal lives. NASA would have never allowed anyone with such a borderline personality disorder into a golf cart, forget about in command of the Moon Landing.

Armstrong, not a man who enjoyed the public spotlight, reached the literal peak of his career in that July of 1969. Not one to seek publicity, he stayed out of the limelight despite NASA's efforts to force him into it. Buzz Aldrin ended up taking most of that slack. The 35-years or so between his public triumph and the publishing of his novel have no doubt taken their toll on Armstrong. But, I cannot believe he was as brooding and distant to his family and colleagues as he is portrayed in the movie (or in his novel).

Specifics...

Particularly annoying ... the spacecraft are filthy! These are not the Millennium Falcon (they couldn't made the Kessel Run in even 1200 parsecs). Windows streaked with ice from atmospheric condensation? The windows of the CM were covered by the escape tower until it was jettisoned, well clear of the atmosphere. These are single-use, state of the art, space ships that were the pride of NASA. NASA was positively anal about cleanliness. A loose thread, a speck of dust, could cause a short that could kill not only another three astronauts but the entire program. No one went near an operational spacecraft without a clean suit, gloves, and disposable booties. I wouldn't have been shocked if during the Gemini Eight spin scene, Armstrong didn't bang on the control panel to get it working while David Scott growled like a Wookie. Don't believe me? Look at the photos from the era. Those ships would have made Martha Stewart's house look like a coal barge.

The Moon sets looked like stage props from a '50s B-movie sci-fi. There are no rugged cliff faces or craters with sheer drops. The moon has been worn smooth after billions of years of micrometeorite bombardment and no tectonic movement. There are barely any places on the moon where the terrain angles more than 40 degrees ... particularly not in the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo 11 did land past its intended target (partly because Moon gravity isn't as consistently even as it is on Earth) and they did have to fly over an area of boulders and craters. But, the landing spot beyond was smooth -- look at the photos.

The 'flag scene' which got the most pre-premeire hype isn't a problem. In fact, the American Flag is clearly seen in a long shot of the LEM. It's the entire moon landing scene which is like watching space dry.

Literally NOTHING happens the entire time, they barely talk. Two men from Earth walked on the surface of another planet for the first time and only Aldrin even breaks a smile. In the film, they just walk around, stare at the terrain as if to say, 'What a colossal waste of time!'. I agree, the movie version of the landing was a colossal waste of time and $30s for ticket and treats.

Overall, this is one space 'program' that should have been scrapped in the planning phase.

I did not see the film yet but am old enough to remember the actual event, I was 12 at the time, I live on Long Island in NY and 69 was the least controversial year of the 60's IMO, first we had the moon landing, then woodstock and then the NYMets won the world series, I am hard pressed to recall a better year in my life...my mother also worked for grumman aerospace who did a lot of the work for both NASA and the USN...[she helped develop and construct the electrical harness for the LEM and F-14'S].

Much of what I remember from the late '60s are similar to your memories. I was 11 and wrapped up in my own white (Jewish) suburban neighborhood. I watched TV, I rode my bike, I was a boy scout, and on the cusp of discovering girls. My scoutmaster was an engineer at Edwards AFB and we got to see a lot of behind the scenes of the X-Plane project. I even met Chuck Yeager but had no idea who he was or why my scoutmaster was so in awe of him.

I knew about the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Robert Kennedy (especially close to me as my neighbor's father was a LAPD lieutenant and his camper was used to transport Sirhan Sirhan in secret from the Ambassador Hotel to Police Plaza to avoid the press). I heard my parents and their friends discussing the war. An older boy my sister liked died in Vietnam. But, I was more upset over the cancellation of 'Batman' and 'Star Trek' than the protests, riots, bombings, and assassinations of the '60s.

But, beyond the largely segregated suburbs of LA, there was an entirely different city with people who had problems that I couldn't even begin to understand.

I was late high school.

I hope you got a deferment.

Lottery numbers were 'way high!

Whew!

 

[there4eyeM]

Massive spending on an impossible war led to fiscal problems. The slaughter of our young, and the effects upon them of slaughtering others, cost us a great deal more.
Those who opposed the war served their country well, if ineffectively. Too bad the best of those souls never gained political stature. Most never sought it.
Spending to go to the moon was exorbitant, but America was so rich that it wasn't too much of a problem. We benefited from the advances in computers and metallurgy. Moon rocks didn't do a lot for the G.D.P.
Women and minorities began to prod for change and were met with mindless resistance. Mindlessness never went away, but some progress was made by those who needed and deserved it the most.
Hyperbole about present divisions in America serve to increase that division. Those who speak of imminent 'civil war' do so in a fashion that resembles an incantation to elicit it. That the nation is divided over certain issues is not at all new. What is new is a population so drugged with wealth and comfort that no massive, physical uprising of any kind is even thinkable.
The 60s passed. Nostalgia is a worse than useless emotion, and that decade deserves none even of that.