This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the scope of the plot of this movie? Is it a true biopic in the sense that it covers Armstrong's entire life after Apollo 11, or does it end at the climactic event of the first lunar landing mission? (I suspect it is the latter, but we can't know until we see the picture and thus can write a plot description.) If it is the former, then it is appropriate to describe the characters in context of all their space program accomplishments (e.g. Lovell commanded Apollo 13, and Kranz was Flight Director for Apollo 13). If it's the latter, then I think it is not appropriate to include details of anything that happened outside of the scope of the film (or at least not to emphasize those details, despite the fact Kranz is more famous for Apollo 13 than Apollo 11). The character descriptions should fit the context of the film, despite the fact they are real-world people notable for events outside the scope of the film. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Brody’s piece for the New Yorker is not an actual review/criticism of the film itself, it’s just him finding things to complain about to tie it to politics (he says the film is hindered for not showing the female Russian astronauts or Armstrong’s views of the Jim Crow south). I don’t think it adds anything to the article, and to lead it off with “it’s a right wing fetish object” only shows that the review (and it’s inclusion here) are purely political. TropicAces ( talk) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The American flag controversy section seems to be too long. I suggest shortening it, leaving only one paragraph, that would mention Marco Rubio's original statement and Chazelles response in Variety on September 10th, 2018. The other statements regarding absence of the a flag planing scene derived from this Marco Rubio's original statement. I also think Political stance section to be unnecessary and trivial given the modern political climate. Positions and views held by couple of journalists reviewing the film have not led to an actual wide-spread controversy about the film. Chegis ( talk) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The website, which had earlier downplayed the flag controversy, is now stating that Internet criticism related to the controversy probably hurt the film at the box office. [1] 2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 ( talk) 15:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with the fact that the article mentioned Internet criticism. 2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
To quote the article "If you believe those who say First Man was hurt by Ryan Gosling’s ‘globalist’ defense of director Damien Chazelle’s decision not to depict astronaut Neil Armstrong’s planting of an American flag on the moon—and the Internet is crawling with those who make that claim—then Gosling’s explanation cost up to $45,000 a word this weekend."
2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 (
talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Is the scene showing Armstrong dropping Karen's bracelet into Little West crater accurate? Would the article benefit from a section on Historical Accuracy? Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
"Dirty, rusty... This is obviously an editor's synthesis. He appears to be guessing that since the spacecraft were single use, and had never been used in space, they should appear new. In reality the vehicles were wrung through the wringer before the missions. Tested, and run through simulations for months. They did get some wear, and dirt.
98.164.71.229 ( talk) 08:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this subsection of the "Reception" section really necessary? It does not seem notable to me. Sandrobost ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Where in the article can we add that this movie was a box office flop? Can i mention it in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.185.101.150 ( talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The budget section is INCORRECT! A person who doesn’t check their facts has posted the budget at 59-70 million and locked it there. It WAS 70 million but it’s been made abundantly clear (through the citations that even they post) that tax cuts have reduced it to 59 million. BoxOfficeMojo has even corrected it to 59 million. Someone needs to unlock it and correct it once and for all! It makes a significant impact on the audience’s POV of its box office revenue. S26205229 ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In this case, I find ranging the budget from $59-70 million unnecessary, especially when it’s been labeled on IMDB and Box Office Mojo, which lists the budget and tracks the revenue, as $59 million. As for sources? They were already listed! The Hollywood Reporter and other articles listed were rounded or written before the clarification was made. It’s been widely stated that $59 million was the budget, because $70 million was before taxes. S26205229 ( talk) 20:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the first comment - it was made in reply to someone who messaged me quite rudely. I didn’t know I had created a forum! My bad. S26205229 ( talk) 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, please bear with me if some of my comments appear blunt. The first, as I said, was an accident and not intended for anyone on this forum. Sometimes I acccidentally send things somewhere and I don’t know how! I’m newer at this, so please bear with me. S26205229 ( talk) 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong decribed as a calm man in documents and seen with smiling on some photos. In the movies he shown with depressed, frustrated. I think NASA psychology test dont allow such a person to run such a mission. "Ice Commander" shouldnt hit the console when landing. I think article should talk about it... Beyond silence 21:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It says that both parties condemed that. However the source only shows republican politicians. Where are the democrats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this necessary? Why should an actual image of Buzz Aldrin with the flag be included in this article? Soronast ( talk) 10:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the 'Factual errors' section, added back recently. Though this time there were citations, these were not about First Man, or factual errors in First man. Unless a secondary source has identified factual errors in the film, and published info about them, Wikipedia editors shouldn't really be discovering factual errors themselves (or at least they shouldn't be adding their WP:OR here). Sionk ( talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads, "First Man is a 2018 American biographical science fiction drama film directed...".
Did I miss something? Science fiction? Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theories, the film depicts historical *facts*, not historical *fictions*. I think this needs to be changed to a more appropriate genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.33.111 ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the scope of the plot of this movie? Is it a true biopic in the sense that it covers Armstrong's entire life after Apollo 11, or does it end at the climactic event of the first lunar landing mission? (I suspect it is the latter, but we can't know until we see the picture and thus can write a plot description.) If it is the former, then it is appropriate to describe the characters in context of all their space program accomplishments (e.g. Lovell commanded Apollo 13, and Kranz was Flight Director for Apollo 13). If it's the latter, then I think it is not appropriate to include details of anything that happened outside of the scope of the film (or at least not to emphasize those details, despite the fact Kranz is more famous for Apollo 13 than Apollo 11). The character descriptions should fit the context of the film, despite the fact they are real-world people notable for events outside the scope of the film. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Brody’s piece for the New Yorker is not an actual review/criticism of the film itself, it’s just him finding things to complain about to tie it to politics (he says the film is hindered for not showing the female Russian astronauts or Armstrong’s views of the Jim Crow south). I don’t think it adds anything to the article, and to lead it off with “it’s a right wing fetish object” only shows that the review (and it’s inclusion here) are purely political. TropicAces ( talk) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The American flag controversy section seems to be too long. I suggest shortening it, leaving only one paragraph, that would mention Marco Rubio's original statement and Chazelles response in Variety on September 10th, 2018. The other statements regarding absence of the a flag planing scene derived from this Marco Rubio's original statement. I also think Political stance section to be unnecessary and trivial given the modern political climate. Positions and views held by couple of journalists reviewing the film have not led to an actual wide-spread controversy about the film. Chegis ( talk) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The website, which had earlier downplayed the flag controversy, is now stating that Internet criticism related to the controversy probably hurt the film at the box office. [1] 2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 ( talk) 15:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with the fact that the article mentioned Internet criticism. 2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
To quote the article "If you believe those who say First Man was hurt by Ryan Gosling’s ‘globalist’ defense of director Damien Chazelle’s decision not to depict astronaut Neil Armstrong’s planting of an American flag on the moon—and the Internet is crawling with those who make that claim—then Gosling’s explanation cost up to $45,000 a word this weekend."
2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 (
talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Is the scene showing Armstrong dropping Karen's bracelet into Little West crater accurate? Would the article benefit from a section on Historical Accuracy? Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
"Dirty, rusty... This is obviously an editor's synthesis. He appears to be guessing that since the spacecraft were single use, and had never been used in space, they should appear new. In reality the vehicles were wrung through the wringer before the missions. Tested, and run through simulations for months. They did get some wear, and dirt.
98.164.71.229 ( talk) 08:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this subsection of the "Reception" section really necessary? It does not seem notable to me. Sandrobost ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Where in the article can we add that this movie was a box office flop? Can i mention it in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.185.101.150 ( talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The budget section is INCORRECT! A person who doesn’t check their facts has posted the budget at 59-70 million and locked it there. It WAS 70 million but it’s been made abundantly clear (through the citations that even they post) that tax cuts have reduced it to 59 million. BoxOfficeMojo has even corrected it to 59 million. Someone needs to unlock it and correct it once and for all! It makes a significant impact on the audience’s POV of its box office revenue. S26205229 ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In this case, I find ranging the budget from $59-70 million unnecessary, especially when it’s been labeled on IMDB and Box Office Mojo, which lists the budget and tracks the revenue, as $59 million. As for sources? They were already listed! The Hollywood Reporter and other articles listed were rounded or written before the clarification was made. It’s been widely stated that $59 million was the budget, because $70 million was before taxes. S26205229 ( talk) 20:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the first comment - it was made in reply to someone who messaged me quite rudely. I didn’t know I had created a forum! My bad. S26205229 ( talk) 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, please bear with me if some of my comments appear blunt. The first, as I said, was an accident and not intended for anyone on this forum. Sometimes I acccidentally send things somewhere and I don’t know how! I’m newer at this, so please bear with me. S26205229 ( talk) 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong decribed as a calm man in documents and seen with smiling on some photos. In the movies he shown with depressed, frustrated. I think NASA psychology test dont allow such a person to run such a mission. "Ice Commander" shouldnt hit the console when landing. I think article should talk about it... Beyond silence 21:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It says that both parties condemed that. However the source only shows republican politicians. Where are the democrats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this necessary? Why should an actual image of Buzz Aldrin with the flag be included in this article? Soronast ( talk) 10:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the 'Factual errors' section, added back recently. Though this time there were citations, these were not about First Man, or factual errors in First man. Unless a secondary source has identified factual errors in the film, and published info about them, Wikipedia editors shouldn't really be discovering factual errors themselves (or at least they shouldn't be adding their WP:OR here). Sionk ( talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads, "First Man is a 2018 American biographical science fiction drama film directed...".
Did I miss something? Science fiction? Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theories, the film depicts historical *facts*, not historical *fictions*. I think this needs to be changed to a more appropriate genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.33.111 ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)