I was expecting this to be an Oscar vehicle for Gosling, among other things of course, from the moment I heard about it. That quiet intensity is pretty much his forte, looking forward to it.
Yes it was, they shot most of it on 16mm film to create that look. Only the moon stuff at the end was shot with IMAX cameras.Now I don’t know whether it was deliberate to give a 1960s vintage feel but I felt the cinematography looked quite grainy with a fair amount of soft and out-of focus scenes on the IMAX screen. There were some good space scenes but on the whole I wouldn’t say the extra cost of IMAX is not worthwhile over one of the bigger standard screens.
That was another age of adventure.One thing about the story that I found really sobering (assuming it was accurate) was that
That's is factually incorrect on many levels.One thing about the story that I found really sobering (assuming it was accurate) was that
That the lunar landing was completed without any real menaingful or successful testing or simulation on Earth. Essentially Neil and Buzz left in the lunar lander with no real evidence that that it would work, either in the landing or the return.
But that was exactly the parts of the mission I was referring too - you even included that in your post using my quote.Pretty much everything bar the final powered descent and touchdown had been tested prior to 11. Apollo 11 was the test flight for those elements. If it had failed, then Apollo 12 would have been the next flight to test those elements.
The LM was tested. It was tested in manned and unmanned missions in Earth orbit and in Lunar obit. Of course, the touchdown hadn't been tested until 11...if it was then someone else would have been First Man. Your original point was that there was no real or meaningful testing down prior to the touchdown when in reality there were thousands of hours of testing.But that was exactly the parts of the mission I was referring too - you even included that in your post using my quote.
As for the grainy, soft focus, which looked bad in IMAX - I made that point in my first post and someone replied that it was deliberate, being shot in 16mm to give it that vintage 1960s look.
The LM was tested. It was tested in manned and unmanned missions in Earth orbit and in Lunar obit. Of course, the touchdown hadn't been tested until 11...if it was then someone else would have been First Man. Your original point was that there was no real or meaningful testing down prior to the touchdown when in reality there were thousands of hours of testing.
The risks were still high though. Armstrong himself said that there was a 30% chance of a succesful touchdown on the first test of that part of the program. Steely-eyed missile men indeed.
The grainy film was very evident. I think three formats were used with the most grainy being used for Armstrong's memories of Karen.
Hi Nigel,The film did show testing with the bedstead contraption, showing Neil trying to control it and failing and having to eject before it crashed. The film then suggested that this was the end of testing although Neil did say “it’s a bit late for that” so it was left a bit unclear. I think there was also mention later that Buzz had done better and I think he was the pilot of the lunar lander.
But I was just commenting how brave the guys were - how many today would do something where the chance of dying was so high.
My mind boggles at the challenge and bravery - much more than the other Gemini and Apollo tests. Think of all the unknown things that had to go right
1) that the lander could be controlled to descend at the right speed and direction
2) that they will land on a clear bit of the moon
3) that the surface would support the lander
4) that the lander could support the impact of landing
5) that the lander could then take off and dock with the command module
As far as I could see there was little confidence of any of these.
I know a lot of adventurers, soldiers, rescue people face death but I can’t think of much where the odds were so poor.
The LLTV (Lunar Landing Training Vehicle) was flown by Armstrong more than 30 times and he completed in the region of 50 landings in it. Armstrong rated the craft highly and said that it was the perfect system for training to fly the LM. Armstrong's ejection happened on flight 22 in 1968. He continued to fly the Vehicle, completing his last flight 3 weeks before the A11 flight in 1969.
All of the subsequent Apollo Commanders and LM Pilots flew the LLTV as it provided such good flight experience.
They got an awful lot very correct in the movie...some of the details in the CSM/LM and on the suits were spot on, as was some of the Lunar scenes (like the sparkling in the regolith, presumably glass-like spheroids). It's not an accurate portrayal of history though...there's huge amounts of artistic licence in there.Thanks for the info, that certainly did come across in the film. How it came across to me was, the first time we saw the test bed was when Neil was struggling with the controls and had to eject. It was immediately after that that he had the “it’s over” conversation with the project controllers because his face was skill scuffed up and bleeding from the crash. We never saw any more testing so it looked like it was abandoned shortly after it started.
The information on the other test was very useful, thanks for that. Again I don’t think they were really covered in the movie. It had a fair bit about testing the command module separation and then picking up the lander but not much about the actual lander.
So it seemed to me that Lunar Lander operations were practically untested.
Saw at imax in Edinburgh but disappointed with quality of cinema, left review below:Saw it yesterday on IMAX.
I really enjoyed it, thought it was well made and acted, but then I really like the subject.
But much as I liked it, I think The Right Stuff is better - if you haven’t seen that one, check it out.
I suspect if you are not into the subject you might find it quite slow and boring at times.
Now I don’t know whether it was deliberate to give a 1960s vintage feel but I felt the cinematography looked quite grainy with a fair amount of soft and out-of focus scenes on the IMAX screen. There were some good space scenes but on the whole I wouldn’t say the extra cost of IMAX is not worthwhile over one of the bigger standard screens.
Personally, I’d agree with the rating of 8/10 but if you are not really into the space race then you might rate it lower.
I didn’t look specifically at the quality of the blacks but I have already said that the picture looked grainy and sometimes out of focus, and that has since been explained as done deliberately (using 16mm cameras) to give a 1960s feel.Saw at imax in Edinburgh but disappointed with quality of cinema, left review below:
Am I being picky on quality of blacks or was it just cinematography or faulty cinema.