MovieChat Forums > First Man (2018) Discussion > Remember the American Flag controversy?

Remember the American Flag controversy?

posted 6 years ago by Rorikon (16363)
25 replies | jump to latest

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2018/10/10/first-man-box-office-american-flag-backlash/
As an example.

That was such bullshit. Finally saw the movie and I saw so much symbolism along with American flags.
1. Neil's son was hoisting one up on the flagpole in their home
2. American flag on the rocket and lunar module (Eagle) + other places I forgot
3. American flag ON THE MOON (just not shown being planted)
4. As Neil rides up the elevator into Apollo 11 we see the UNITED STATES

Misc.
-Since there is very little gravity on the moon (1.62 m/s²), it was neat seeing the flag just float there in midair not moving (although it's probably faded white by now from the suns rays).
-Space is very cold and very dark and there is not a lot to look at while in space nor is there sound
-Tech from 1965 to 1969 advanced a lot where the gauges and button switches turned digital for some and gave better readings on others when Neil went up in Apollo 11 since Gemini 8.
-Gemini 8 - Spin Out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WniA1hsqsPs
-Apollo 1 - Crew Death by Fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIk9sP9pEPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274lQSbpkRg
-Apollo 11 - Flag Plant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfOR1Xewo-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS4gpRCjIbE

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Who said there was no gravity on the moon? Like... what?

[–] Rorikon (16363) 6 years ago

Typoed and corrected, thx.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Also, there's a bar that goes across the top of the flag that prevents it from drooping down from the moon's gravity.

[–] Satan2016 (23270) 6 years ago

There is some gravity. You need atmosphere to move a flag.

Digital displays would have been nixie tubes, which combine a counter and display without using logic gates.
Did they mention the computer? It was as powerful as a calculator from early 70s.
The live video was low-def and frame rate. Nobody thought to record it.

[–] Rorikon (16363) 6 years ago

Ah so that's what they're called. Neat. I didn't hear or see any mention of the computer, just the change of the control panel on the command module.

http://space1.com/Spacecraft_Data/Handbook_Illustrations/Gemini_Spacecraft/Gemini_Control_Panel/gemini_control_panel.html
https://i.stack.imgur.com/9MLz4.gif

[–] Satan2016 (23270) 6 years ago

Gemini looks like fighter jet controls. I'll have to find a picture of the Apollo controls.

The computer had 7-segment displays, I didn't think they exists back then. Nixies had 10 orange digits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

The user interface to the AGC was the DSKY, standing for display and keyboard and usually pronounced dis-key. It had an array of indicator lights, numeric displays and a calculator-style keyboard. Commands were entered numerically, as two-digit numbers: Verb, and Noun. Verb described the type of action to be performed and Noun specified which data was affected by the action specified by the Verb command.

The numerals were displayed via green high-voltage electroluminescent seven-segment displays. The segments were driven by electromechanical relays, which limited the display update rate. Three five-digit signed numbers could also be displayed in octal or decimal, and were typically used to display vectors such as space craft attitude or a required velocity change (delta-V). Although data was stored internally in metric units, they were displayed as United States customary units. This calculator-style interface was the first of its kind, the prototype for all similar digital control panel interfaces.

The Command Module had two DSKYs connected to its AGC: one located on the main instrument panel and a second located in the lower equipment bay near a sextant used for aligning the inertial guidance platform. The Lunar Module had a single DSKY for its AGC. A flight director attitude indicator (FDAI), controlled by the AGC, was located above the DSKY on the commander's console and on the LM.

[–] mrjr101 (12) 6 years ago

You have missed the point of the flag controversy. The planting of the flag was an iconic and historic event that revolved around Neil himself. That’s a backstory of Armstrong that liberals chose to ommit. The controversy wasn’t because the flag was missing in the movie.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) 6 years ago

It's not missing. There are two wide shots specifically of the flag sitting next to the lunar module. There is just not specifically a flag planting scene.

[–] mrjr101 (12) 6 years ago

Didn’t you read what I said? I said the point of the controversy is not because the flag is missing from the movie. They couldn’t omit the flag on the space suits, on the rockets, on the moon, because it was a biopic. But the planting of the flag that was the defining moment of the space race, of those 2 incredibly brave men was omitted. So in that sense, they also omitted Armstrong devotion and sentiment for America, The movie was a one dimensional BULLSHIT

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) 6 years ago

I misread your post. My bad.

In any case, I'm about as pro-America as you can get and I enjoyed the film quite a bit. 8.5/10.

I can't criticize it for being anti-American when they specifically show a news clip of a French woman saying, "I was confident the United States could do it," clearly acknowledging that it was first and foremost a US accomplishment.

[–] mrjr101 (12) 6 years ago

I don’t think it was an anti american cheap shot. I just thought it didn’t entirely represent Neil. Other than that we agree.

[–] Rorikon (16363) 6 years ago

I see your point. The movie did focus on Neil himself and his family, not Buzz Aldrin or other. I guess if they showed stories of all 3 of them maybe it'll be different? Think the point they were trying to get across as a whole is his iconic lines said rather than the planting of the flag being it was one giant leap for mankind.

I kind of hope we can go to the moon again but take better video this time? Or maybe it was dull and quiet like in the movie when they got out and just stared around, jumped around a bit, then collected samples before blasting off back home. XD

[–] mrjr101 (12) 5 years ago

It wasn’t dull and just jumping around. You should watch the 3 hour long Nasa footage on Youtube. There was quite a bit of dialogue and science been done up there. There was even a phone call with the President of the United States and a flag salute moment.

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 6 years ago

You have missed the point of the flag controversy. The planting of the flag was an iconic and historic event that revolved around Neil himself. That’s a backstory of Armstrong that liberals chose to ommit. The controversy wasn’t because the flag was missing in the movie.

No, that is not the flag controversy. That's the frantic moving of the goal posts after the suckers were revealed to have been taken in by a hoax. First of all, the planting itself is NOT iconic, or everybody would know who did it. Did YOU know who did it, before looking it up? The controversy is that apparently, all references to this being an American achievement had been omitted, which is simply not true. And in that context, the actual planting is painfully irrelevant. So the planting of the flag, that was NOT what was originally complained about. From the Breitbart article:

"Last month, it emerged that Chazelle had apparently omitted any references to the mission as an American achievement as well as any presence of the American flag being planting on the moon"

Note how it says "ANY PRESENCE" - when you see the flag on the moon, you think it materialised out of nothing? It's been planted there, so when you see the flag, you see a flag that has been planted. So to say that there is no presence of a flag being planted on the moon, that is a lie. And to further demonstrate how it's about the flag, and not the planting of it, the article also quotes Trump:

"I wouldn’t even want to watch the movie. When you think of Neil Armstrong and when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the American flag."

And the flag is there. No, you don't see it planted, but that's not important. You'll note that Trump did NOT say, "when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the PLANTING of the American flag." He didn't say that, because indeed you don't. You think about the flag standing there, and that is something you see very clearly.

The reason certain ignorant people NOW say it's about the planting is because the "no flag" claim is so obviously a lie, so they now have to modify their complaint in order to still hate a movie they have not seen.

Again, the planting itself is not iconic. The iconic moments are the landing itself, "one small step for man", and the flag on the moon. Not specifically the flag being planted on the moon, because that was certainly no Iwo Jima moment, but the presence of the flag on the moon.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Would you really expect anything less than bullshit from Breitbart?

To that rag, everything is a leftist conspiracy.

[–] Satan2016 (23270) 6 years ago

Another Village Idiot from the Trump board. He linked to Breitbart to debunk it!

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

OMG, how is it that you are so stupid you just COMPLETELY CLOWNED YOURSELF?!?!?

Did you even bother reading the inaccurate breitbart article yourself? It doesn't debunk anything, it PROMOTES the film as as having an "internationalist theme" and provides a number of quotes from people criticizing the film for omitting "any references to the mission as an American achievement as well as any presence of the American flag being planting on the moon".

Rory was pointing out the breitbart article was BULLSHIT because he saw plenty of symbolism.

Did you know that every time you've tried to challenge any of my posts you ALWAYS end up making a fool out of yourself?
EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT FAIL!

You should think about that the next time you think you know better. Your reading comprehension is simply too poor for you to be copping attitude about anything. lulz.

[–] Satan2016 (23270) 6 years ago

Like I said, "He [rorikon] linked to Breitbart to debunk it!". Only 7 words but you failed to comprehend.

Like I said, village idiot!

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

ROTFL!

Hey moron, if that was your point then what was your gripe about?

I was agreeing with Rory that the Breitbart article is bullshit and asking him what he could expect because it's Breitbart.

You rushed into defend breitbart because everyone knows you are a loyal reader of that fake news. You made a fool out of yourself, that's why it took you 14 hours to change your post and come up with the lie that you actually told me that Rory was debunking the breitbart article.

Well no shit sherlock, that's why I was asking him what he could expect by reading Breitbart in the first place.

Your edit makes no sense. So what were you calling me an idiot for when I was just affirming to Rory that the Breitbart article he debunked was typical fake news from Breitbart? The reality is because you were too stupid and lazy to read the breitbart article yourself because you consider breitbart the gospel of truth. As usual, you were proven wrong by the facts. LMAO!

Kid you need to give up. You're not going to save face after making such a fool out of yourself. Should have taken my advice earlier. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 6 years ago

"You rushed into defend breitbart"
What? He didn't defend Breitbart, what on earth gave you that idea?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

History on the Trump board. He's always posting and defending breitbart stories.

[–] Satan2016 (23270) 6 years ago

You're the asshole who edits your posts after I reply. Preserved!

OMG, how is it that you are so stupid you just COMPLETELY CLOWNED YOURSELF?!?!?

Did you even bother reading the inaccurate breitbart article yourself? It doesn't debunk anything, it PROMOTES the film as as having an "internationalist theme" and provides a number of quotes from people criticizing the film for omitting "any references to the mission as an American achievement as well as any presence of the American flag being planting on the moon".

Rory was pointing out the breitbart article was BULLSHIT because he saw plenty of symbolism.

Did you know that every time you've tried to challenge any of my posts you ALWAYS end up making a fool out of yourself?
EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT FAIL!

You should think about that the next time you think you know better. Your reading comprehension is simply too poor for you to be copping attitude about anything. lulz.

[–] ZaphodBeeblebrox (4) 6 years ago

The flag "controversy" has nothing to do with the film's poor performance - it's just a bad film. Very slow with zero likable characters. The shaky cam is overdone. The camera can't stay focused on anything for more than a minute or two. The actual moon launch and exploration doesn't occur until the very end of the extremely long film. Very disappointing.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) 6 years ago

I thought Neil was likable, just introverted.

And his wife seemed like a good woman. A rock for the family.

A character need not be a fun-loving jokester to be likable.

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 6 years ago

This flag controversy isn't a major issue in my book (I haven't seen the film). Unfortunately for this film, it's released during a time of major backlash against "globalist" governments that are perceived to be more interested in the well-being of people outside their countries while having their own hands in the cookie jar all the same. It's not tinfoil hat territory to suggest that "First Man" shied away from an iconic American moment because they were concerned about appearing sycophantic toward the USA, even if this is a matter of historical record. The other problem is that I don't think Damien Chazelle is being honest in his reason for the scene's omission. He claims it was for artistic reasons, that a flag planting moment would've disrupted the mood he was establishing at this point in the film. This got my bullshit detector beeping. I think Gosling's controversial remark is much closer to the true reason it was omitted. So my problem with Chazelle is that he was too much of a coward to own up to his true motivation (or at least the more important one). He couldn't win either way, of course.