Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Is this thread just for the technical stuff?
Yep. I thought the effects were pretty impressive, though there was an awful lot of shaking going on, and noises that sounded like a submarine about to implode, even when in space. I'm also not sure why the controls in the LEM were so dirty.It was also focused very much on Armstrong, so the sequence of events was a bit fractured.
I thought leaving the bracelet on the moon was hokum, and I was right - they made it up, probably to add some 'emotion' to a notably emotionless character. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a23744321/fi...
I'd have preferred a factual film not one with made-up bits.
I'd have preferred a factual film not one with made-up bits.
I view it as 'making stuff up'. Just because somebody left something personal on the moon does not mean that everybody else did. There's enough real material and real drama in the space race to make a film without making things up as well.
But I'm going away from my own thread. On the tecchy side, how did it hold up?
But I'm going away from my own thread. On the tecchy side, how did it hold up?
Eric Mc said:
Seems he liked the soppy bits best.I'm reading 'North to the Orient' by Anne Lindbergh (she flew with her husband on this trip in 1931). From NY across Canada's frozen wastes, the very top of Alaska, Nome then across the Bering Strait and on down. But there is nothing about the aeroplane (I'm over halfway and have no idea what kind it is), or about the flying, or the landings or the take-offs - it's mostly descriptions of Eskimo clothing and house interiors By contrast Charles' account of his transatlantic flight in 1927 is totally gripping.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff