Talk:First Man (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Scope of real-life character descriptions

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)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, and I would support scaling back the descriptions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It starts with Armstrong's last x-15 flight and ends with him in quarantine...anything more than that is a spoiler.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker review

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)[reply]

Agreed, this is barely a professional review. It is, as an other editor said, mostly a provocative click-bait article with phrases as "right-wing blowhards". The New Yorker also published a much more positive review that graded the film a 8/10, which is the one that is used on Metacritic. Not to mention that this is not a common opinion (as far as I know this reviewer is the only person who shares it) and as such not notable enough to include in this article. Sandrobost (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening of Political controversies section

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)[reply]

Deadline Hollywood has apparently reversed its earlier backtrack of the flag controversy

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)[reply]

If you read the article, you'll see that it is purely hypothetical. They are not stating anything, simply calculating how many dollars each word of Gosling's statement would cost if they had any effect on the box office. Nowhere does it say that it probably hurt the film at the box office. Sandrobost (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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