Talk:Apollo 13 (film)/Archive 1

Miscelaneous original posts
The final manual burn of the LEM's engine, done to put Apollo 13 back in course, lasted 14 seconds, not 39, and was done with the engine pointed perpendicular to the Earth instead of towards the Earth as depicted in the film So uh, what's the difference between towards and perpendicular in the this senario? 22:55, 25 October 2006
 * In the film, the burn was incorrectly shown as being towards the earth. In the actual mission, this burn was at right-angles to the earth to change their entry angle. However, it is a little confusing because there were three burns, with one pointed at the earth to pick up speed just after coming round the moon. (Ajkgordon 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

I was not aware that the 'worm' logo was seen in Apollo 13. Can someone tell me where? Father Rob Lyons 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - in the "Whiter Room" where the astros are suiting up (with James Horner's magnificent music in the background), you can just see the worm logo if you look carefully on the window behind them. It looks like they tried to hide it, so my guess is that they borrowed a current NASA room for the scene.Johno 12:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what song is playing on the spaceship at the beginning of the broadcast on the way to the moon? They're playing it on the tape player. I can't find the name of it anywhere. March 20, 2006, 7:54 PM.
 * You mean "Spirit in the Sky"? It's the title track from a Norman Greenbaum album.  At the very least, it's on the Apollo 13 Soundtrack, as is "Honky Tonkin" and "Blue Moon", the other two taped songs.Dangerdan97 10:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's it, it's a rock song, all you really hear is the intro, but I've heard it before and it sounds good. It's on the broadcast that was never broadcasted, I'm guessing the song wouldn't be on the soundtrack. 18:50, 15 April 2006
 * "Spirit in the Sky" IS a rock song, if you're not aware. Check out the BG music on this site: http://www.spiritinthesky.com/, tell me if that's it.Dangerdan97 11:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right! I looked up that song on iTunes but they didn't have the Norman Greenbaum version, and none of the other ones really sounded like it. Well cool, thanks for the help. 21:12, 20 May 2006

Beer Cans Didn't Exist?
I removed the text " with beer cans which didn't exist in 1970." from the section "Technical Accuracy". Beer "Cans" have existed since 1935 and aluminuim pop-top beer cans as featured in the movie were invented in 1959 and first implemented by Coors in that same year. So it's entirely possible that Ken Mattingly was drinking from beer cans, which certainly did exist at the time. --Matthew 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LET motor
Technically speaking, pressing motor ignition was a measure to jettision LET in case motor didn't ignite automatically, but separation bolts fired (as per http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/csmlc/a16L4-2.gif). If you find it too technical/unprobable, please disregard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.29.211.59 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * If you read the article you'll notice that's already covered :). Mark Grant 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Schoolday physics" and "slightly aerodynamic"
The following text from the article raises some questions for me:


 * Schoolday physics makes clear that the returning craft, coasting towards the Earth, cannot drift off course by being too light. The capsule's mass was important however to the calculations regarding the path made during re-entry (the capsule was slightly aerodynamic), but irrelevant in terms of coasting spacecraft.

First off, what is "schoolday physics"? I can't find anything relevant about it on Google or wikipedia.

Second, the statement "the capsule was slightly aerodynamic" bothers me, the capsule was designed with airflow in mind, the shape of the capsule being dictated by the aerodynamic requirements of reentry. (See Atmospheric reentry)

Anyways, please give me some feedback on whether I'm way off base or legitimately confused. Thanks.--Matthew 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, that section seems very strangely worded, confused, and uncited. It definitely needs to either be removed or heavily rewritten. MLilburne 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like someone was trying to display their aptitude in the field of physics. I just watched the commentary of Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell stated that the fact that they weren't carrying moon rocks did affect their trajectory due to it being underweight. This was in addition to the leaking water vapor.


 * Schoolday physics sounds like an attempt by a non-native English speaker to transfer an expression from a different language into English (high school physics is likely the equivalent phrase). Anyway the remark is very muddled. Whilst it's nominally true that mass wouldn't affect trajectory through a gravitational field during an unaccelerated coast through a perfect vacuum, the heavier a spacecraft, the less it "skims" or "skips" along the atmosphere during re-entry. Gwen Gale 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the mass discrepancy had an effect on the course corrections, which is why they were shallowing up before re-entry. In other words, they calculated thrust, angle and duration of the corrections without taking into account of having "not landed on the moon". The shallowing was as a result of there having been too much correction for less mass. Or have I got that arse-about-face? --AJKGordon 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very late reply. I seem to recall, from the book Lost Moon (which the film was based on) that the mass correction was needed before reentry so that the command module would behave as expected by the CM computer.  However, it was not the cause of the craft shallowing out.  Later investigation showed that the craft shallowed out because an exhaust vent in the lunar module was providing a very small, virtually unnoticeable thrust.  Normally, the vent would not be operating, because normally the LM would not be active during the flight to the moon, and the brief amount of time that the LM was active, very little thrust would be provided by the vent.  Of course, the people at NASA didn't know this at the time, and while the mass issue was at best a red herring, the film was accurate in one respect: the people at Mission Control didn't actually know what was going on while the flight was in progress. — MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The last answer above is fair enough, but the "solution" shown in the film to me seems to be insulting the logic of movie viewers: When mission control concludes from a deviation in the flight trajectory that the command module is too light (lack of moon rock samples), mission control requests to move ballast from the LM to the CM. However, at the time the CM and the LM are still connected and remain so for the course correction. The mass that might affect the course correction remains unchanged by the action. --Vigilius (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy
Regarding the technical innacuracy "In reality, there was no one single source of the problem. The explosion wasn't caused by a bad coil, but by a sequence of events which led to bare wires and (flammable) insulation in a tank of oxygen" - While a series of oversights led to this problem being created and remaining undiscovered, in the context of the mission events, wouldn't this be considered a "single" initial problem? In that case, how is this a technical innaccuracy on the part of the movie? — Swpb talk contribs 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst the ãbove remark may be OR... the movies shows a brief shot of some electrical part sparking and the comment may be a bash at saying, "there was more to it than that". Gwen Gale 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At the end of the movie, in the Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) voice-over, he describes the problem as occurring two years before he was even named to the flight. This is completely false.  The problem, like subsequent NASA failures, resulted from "go fever" that caused extremely bad decision making by the NASA and contractor team in the month before the accident.  The problems may possibly have begun when the "oxygen shelf" was removed from SM (service module) 106, which flew on Apollo 10.  Because a bolt had not been removed before attempting to lift the shelf from the module, it was dropped two inches.  This happened on October 21, 1968, less than 19 months before the mission.  The official investigation, however, doubted this was the initial cause stating "The probability of tank damage from this incident, therefore, is now considered to be rather low, although it is possible that a loosely fitting fill tube could have been displaced by the event."


 * After the shelf was upgraded, it was installed on SM 109, which was delivered to KSC (Kennedy Space Center) in June 1969. The first indication that the tank was damaged came on March 16, 1970.  Once the tank had been partially pressurized for countdown demonstration testing, it did not empty as it should have.  It was decided to "boil off" the oxygen from the tank by running the heater coils.  When this was not fast enough the fans were also turned on.  This still didn't work fast enough so a pressure cycling technique was improvised.  Instead of delaying the flight to replace a tank that was not working as designed, the team decided it was only necessary to test to make sure the tank could be filled.  So they did additional testing which made additional "boiling off" necessary.  The heaters had thermostats intended to prevent the temperature from exceeding 80 degrees F, but they didn't work when connected to the 65V power supply on the ground.  They had been designed only for the 28V power supply of the spacecraft.  As a result temperatures in the tank rose as high as 1000 degrees F, and cooked the Teflon insulation enough for the wires to spark in flight.  It is ironic that the can-do, improvisational attitude so well illustrated in the movie not only saved the lives of the astronauts but also caused the accident. Johhtfd (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it feasible to add that the moon is shown in an incorrect phase and wrong position in the sky during the Apollo 11 timeframe (Lovell's thumb scene), or would that be too nitty picky? 91.33.223.228 05:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, it amazes me how people can pick out "Mystakes" in a film both very big, and also the very little. As to answer the above question, I think that pointing out the moon was not in its correct phase for the time of events... way to nitty picky. MattyC3350 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the statement that things were "verbatim", that statement is only partially correct. Phrases were changed other than just the famous one. Also, the chronology was jumping all over the place in the movie in comparison to the transcript. I will post a link to the full transcript if it's still at NASA (where I downloaded the PDF). All I can find at the moment is a short "chronology" of the disaster event.

I will post more tomorrow on this here.

156.99.40.14 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gene Krantz
Can anyone provide any backing to the assertion that Gene Krantz did a cameo in the movie? I've seen a photograph circling someone that looks nothing like him, but this doesn't get mentioned in the 10th anniversary commentary, and you'd think Jim Lovell might say something about it.Johno 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwordBrother777 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

1974 TV movie
Is there an appropriate place in the article to note that a 1974 TV movie, "Houston, We've Got a Problem", exists? There is a Wikipedia article about it, so it can be linked. The 1974 movie was made of concocted personal crises among the ground crew, and used TV archival footage of the astronauts such as when they assembled the CO2 device. Jim Lovell wrote to TV Guide to comment that it was safer aboard the spaceship than at Mission Control, if the movie resembled reality at all. GBC 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistake
I noticed when the Apollo 13 crew is coming back through the atmosephere, the condensation droplets start falling because of the heat. In real life, the droplets wouldn't fall. They hadn't gone through the atomsphere yet, so the droplets would fly around, not fall! They were still in space, so there is no gravity yet.

Nick 18:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Eragon13. September 29, 2007


 * The condensation droplets fall not because of heat, but because of the slow buildup of gravity as the spacecraft decelerates on its cruise through the increasingly thickening atmosphere layers. That's the whole point of that scene too - they're feeling gravity again, they're "coming home", symbolized by the condensation that has been present throughout the days before now falling off the instruments. The heat effect is only of secondary importance, and isn't felt like that inside the craft during reentry anyway (they'd be in real trouble if it was...). 91.33.223.228 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As the craft rips through the atmosphere the air around it acts like a brake. Slowing down the craft at an amazing rate. Thus the accoring G-forces would basicly pull everything from the top of the craft down MattyC3350 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Slide rule usage comments
The comments at the end of the article regarding the use of slide rules are incorrect. It's true that you can't easily add numbers with a slide rule. So you multiply, divide, perform trig functions, etc, on the slide rule, then transfer the results to paper for any additions or subtractions. Any paper with the results of calculations would only show the additions and subtractions - which is exactly what is shown in the movie. And in fact the calculations being performed at the time would have been the calculations of direction cosine matrices and coordinate conversions, which requires a combination of trig, multiplication and division, and addition and subtractions. So the comments about this calculation in the article are not correct. Brett Buck (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

La Grange(song) by Zz top played during "first show".

 * I think it should be added that during the "first show" the astronauts HAD IN THE 'FILM THE song La Grange by Zz Top is played in the background. I pretty sure its the one though.--Rio de oro (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the broadcast that had been canceled by all networks but the astronauts weren't aware of it, that song was "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum. La Grange was released in 1973, so its inclusion would have been a major error in the movie.  I don't think it's notable enough for "Spirit in the Sky" to be mentioned in this article, but the fact that it's in this movie is already on that song's page.--Rehcsif (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was La Grange becuase of the opening CHORD sounded the same.--Rio de oro (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, it sounds like La Grange in the begining if you compare the first 5 seconds of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The first couple seconds did sound like La Grange. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical accuracy section
I've started to trim this section, which has ballooned well beyond the point of providing useful information about the film. To start, I removed some items that were about dramatic license rather than technical accuracy, and information about continuity gaffes etc. (these do not provide any insight to the film itself unless it is somehow notable for them).

There is a general problem in that the section states that the film is notable for its technical accuracy (undoubtedly true in a large sense vs. other films, given the zero-g filming, verbatim transcripts, etc.) and then spends most of its time picking minor nits that seem to imply otherwise. Not sure how to gain some perspective here but my thought is that the details of each particular inaccuracy aren't relevant and could be covered with a general mention that many minor details (such as external markings on the craft and the duration and order of some events) were technically imperfect. Jgm (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that the Technical Accuracy section is way to detailed and long. Fair enough some of the major changes from the film compared to the real life events can be left. But all the little/minor items that were either changed to make the film easier to follow, film and incorect information should be removed. MattyC3350 (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting this article featured
It would be a personal honor to help get this article featured one day; it's still my favorite film, and I still watch it several times a year. &mdash; Deckiller 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tape player on the spacecraft
The Compact Cassette player used on the Apollo missions was a Sony TC-50 http://www.walkmancentral.com/products/tc-50 It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I think the one used in it was a different model. If it was a TC-50, there's an extra point for accuracy. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement
Hello editors. I like to improve articles related to Wiki Project Films. I plan on getting this article to GA status over the next month. Feel free to assist me while I edit it from time to time. DrNegative (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cast section - two characters
I have some issues with two of the names used in the cast section.

In the article, the CAPCOM at the time of the accident is listed as Bill Pogue. The problem is, according to Lost Moon, Pogue wasn't even in the CAPCOM rotation for that mission (or at least that part of the mission), and also, the CAPCOM when the accident occurred was Jack Lousma. Likely this was drawn from IMDB, since I've seen the same mistake there, but Lousma makes more sense in light of the character's comment about "going up in Apollo 20" (a minor factual mistake, since that mission had already been cancelled, but can be attributed to wishful thinking). Pogue was slated for Apollo 19 before it got cancelled, while Lousma was probable for 20.

Also, I have issues with the name given to the NASA administrator. It's true that NASA's top dog at the time was Thomas O. Paine, but in Lost Moon he's only mentioned a few times. The role seems to fit better with the part of Chris Kraft, who at the time worked around the level seen in the movie. In addition, the "administrator" character was given a few lines that were supposedly stated by Kraft, including his statement about Apollo 13 being the most serious situation in manned spaceflight to that point.

I'm not going to do a full switch of those two roles, but I'm removing those two specifics since they don't quite fit with the original biography. Also, I have no other objections to the cast list as it stands. — MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 22:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the CAPCOM, if you are referring to the one played by Brett Cullen, a character refers to him as "Andy." As to the Joe Spano character, I agree it's meant to be Chris Kraft. His interaction with Deke Slayton (especially the finger pointing) is similar to mannerisms shown in "From the Earth to the Moon." Also, the Chris Kraft Wikipedia page lists his portrayal by Joe Spano in Apollo 13. Vader47000 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. There are no citations for any of the three film appearances purported to be Kraft in his article (BTW, how did that reach FA with this glaring error?) There is also no mention of Kraft in From the Earth to the Moon (TV miniseries) or The Right Stuff (film). (And the latter doesn't even make any sense; Kraft wasn't anywhere near the Administrator level during the Mercury program.) The best we can reasonably do here is mention that maybe Spano is based on Kraft, which I moved to a footnote. But we're still on shaky ground without a citation. Remember a great deal of license is used in docudramas like this. Saying who characters are supposed to be in real life, when they aren't credited as such on screen, is IMO WP:OR. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical accuracy on the burn
I removed a paragraph reading as follows: "* In the movie, when it comes time for the PC+2 burn, Lovell comes up with the idea of using the Earth as the reference point. According to the book, the ground crew, before Apollo 13 went behind the moon, told the astronauts to use the northeast quadrant of the sun as their reference point. The astronauts did this before going behind the moon, so when the time came for the burn the ship was already pointed in the right direction."

Near as I can tell, this is conflating a bunch of different events from the book and movie. In particular, there were four burns in real life that occurred following the explosion. The first doesn't really make an appearance in the movie at all in any form IIRC; that burn occurred shortly before going behind the moon, and put the craft on a free-return trajectory. The second burn was the PC+2 burn. This occurred shortly after emerging from behind the moon, and was solely intended to speed the craft's return to Earth. That burn is referenced several times in the movie, but is not actually shown. (The point at which Lovell shuts down the computer and says "We just put Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat" is immediately following the PC+2 burn.) The third burn was the manual burn -- this is the only one that is really shown in the movie. This is the one where the Earth is used as a reference point. The fourth "burn" was shortly before reentry, using maneuvering thrusters (the RCSs) only, and is also not shown in the movie. So the first bit of confusion is restricted to the movie: the PC+2 burn was not the manual burn.

But the main point of confusion is that the time the astronauts used the sun for alignment was in preparation for the first burn. For the manual burn, the crew did indeed use the Earth's terminator, a procedure that Lovell himself had tried out on Apollo 8. (This brings up another addition to this section that I can make in place of what I removed though.) EvanED (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NASA Computer Screens
Only to me, I noticed the MS-DOS default font used on the computer screens. Back in the late '60s/early '70s, that font didn't exist for computing, as it was taken from PL/M or CP/M or QDOS. The font does look extremely similar to all standard early computing fonts, so it's not that big of deal, just something I caught. Fictional Science Sextuple Feature! 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagentaTimCurryElbowSex (talk • contribs)

Apollo 13 at Metacritic
The correct link is this, and there the movie gets only 77 score, not 85 as the article say. also it says there that the score is based on 22 reviews, not 8. Elyasaf (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Henry Hurt?
A reading of Lost Moon makes it pretty clear that this character is a composite of at least two or three NASA employees. Coincidentally, there happens to be a Henry Hurt in real life, but no indication he ever worked for NASA. This person evidently isn't noteable enough to rate a Wikipedia entry, but references in other articles make it clear he was an investigative journalist, probably best known for writing a JFK assassination conspiracy theory book.

What bothers me is, what on Earth could have posessed the filmmakers to use this name for their made-up character? Does anyone know how to find a source explaining their thinking (like the one given for "failure is not an option")? Did they do it on purpose, or is it pure coincidence (the default assumption, in which case we should leave it alone)?

Also, I hope no one has heartburn over use of quotes in "NASA Director", "Henry Hurt" or "Dr. Chuck". I think it's a perfectly acceptable style to use here to set apart made-up character designations on the credits, from the real-life people in this type of film. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical Accuracy
This section has been tagged for needing sourcing for over a year. The article is now a Good Article Nominee. An editor removed the tag for being "stale", but it appears valid and I have reinserted it. I'm happy to go through the section and pull unsourced information if that is the desired approach at this point, but I think we'd all prefer that sourcing be added appropriately. Doniago (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would help the film's chances of GA status. RAP (talk) 20:49 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from more than one editor, but if you'd like me to pull unsourced info out of the section (given the duration for which it's been tagged I likely would have gotten around to this on my own in any case) let me know. As I noted, I think it would be more ideal if the information was properly sourced. I will move it to Talk rather than simply deleting if it comes to that. Doniago (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the only real citation problem in this section is the "explosion" controversy. This can probably be easily fixed. The controversy really belongs more in the real-world Apollo 13 article; the only part relevant to the film's technical accuracy is the 93-second delay, which is cited. (FYI - I used to be on the "anti-explosion" side, but am not its staunchest advocate and am no longer "afraid" of the word.) Whether on not the tank technically "exploded" is not really relevant here IMO, but I think some editors may be concerned about the movie causing an exaggerated public perception of the violence of the incident (see Talk:Apollo 13). We should try to steer clear of OR territory.
 * The bottom line is, that paragraph could be reduced to one sentence, and then the tag could be removed. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of entire Technical & Historical Accuracy section to try and meet Good Article status?
Hello everyone, User:Rusted AutoParts has (twice) removed this section, presumably based on User:Crisco 1492 failing the article's GA application based on the fact the template had been there since July 2009. I really don't think this is a good outcome or the stated intent of the whole GA procedure. Two basic questions spring to mind here chaps.


 * 1 - Crisco, did you quick fail the article because the template was simply there? Or did you look at the template complaint vs the citations and decide that it was a valid template and the article could not proceed to GA review before the issue was addressed?


 * 2 - Rusted, do you really think the best way to deal with the problem is simply to delete the section outright without trying to resolve the alleged sourcing/citation issues? That seems rather backward - chopping out useful content to meet some arbitary criteria (GA) seems to run very counter to the principles of Wikipedia. Also you said "concurred" in the edit summary - that imply a consensus, but I can't see any - the discussion above suggests that the sourcing is adequate and that the problems can be fixed by pruning one section back and the template could then be removed.

The information seems to my eye useful, sourced (if not perfectly) and the sort of information that someone looking for information on the film, it's background and similarity to actual events would find very useful. I hardly think that you can make an article "good" by making it less informative - in wikipedia terms "worse". What do you chaps think? Incidentally I will restore the section so it can be referred to from this discussion - see Apollo_13_(film). Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm with RAP and Crisco. In the absence of proper sources, this section is original research and does not enhance the article. --John (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)At the time I reviewed (this version), there were already several long standing citation needed tags and several statements that were not tagged but would require citations to pass GA, including the lead's "The film is notable for its technical accuracy" and "However, this remains controversial as most people, including Lovell, continue to characterize the failure as an explosion".
 * Rusted: removing the content (especially the cited stuff) actually damages the article, as it damages its comprehensiveness. If you truly want the article to reach GA, you'll need to do a bit of further research. Sorry.
 * John: I don't suggest removing what is cited. Non-cited contentious stuff, okay. Properly cited information? No. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncited claims are now removed. Does this mean it meets GA now, or do i need to relist it? RAP (talk) 0:13 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a further hack and removed some uncited original research that was still there. We should avoid using "actual", "notable" and so on; they're just padding. For my money the overall standard of this article is still not that of a Good Article. --John (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd have to nominate again. However, before doing so I highly recommend going through the MOS, as the format of the article leaves a bit to be desired. The article needs to be combed over to find any uncited statements, and then source those or delete them (preferably source). Not to mention looking through the pictures used and making sure that non-free pictures have good fair-use rationales. A peer review would probably help tremendously Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a real question from me; is the presence of something on the DVD commentary sufficient to include it here? My feeling is no, but I might be open to persuasion. --John (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of those bullets look like trivia to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot description in summary
No -- no -- no.
 * "Astronauts Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert blast off into space on the Apollo 13 mission. Shortly after, one of the oxygen tanks explodes, causing the crew to be blown off course and leaving Nasa's ground control to try and bring them home safely."

First, real astronauts do not, and never have, "blasted off". That comes from 1950's, grade B, (usually produced for children) science fiction.

Second, style is wrong ("Nasa"), and the writing is not good ("and leaving Nasa's ground control" is ambiguous and confusing); you apparently meant "blown off course, leaving it to NASA flight controllers to bring them home safely.") "Blown off course" is totally incorrect (and wasn't portrayed as such in the film.) And this still implies that the astronauts aboard became helpless, useless, passive passengers waiting to be rescued by NASA. That is totally unfair to the historical record, as well as to how it is portrayed in the film. Plus, tone is wrong: One could say this reads more like a movie trailer than an encyclopedia article.

Third, I don't believe it should be necessary to summarize the plot in the intro, when the plot summary is the first section given after the intro. The negatives outweigh the value of these sentences, so they are dispensable. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA review suggested we add some sort of plot description in the lead. RAP (talk) 19:25 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". This includes covering the top level aspect of the plot, along with everything else the article has to offer. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That and we only have 6 and a half days to address these issues or Apollo 13 fails. Again. RAP (talk) 20:05 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "When an accident befalls the Apollo 13 mission, astronauts Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert must work with NASA's ground control team as they try to return safely to Earth." Doniago (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This horse is dead, so let's stop beating it. It's been taken care of. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Process out of control?
I'm willing to continue the review longer than a week as long as it's clear progress is being made in the article. As for WP:LEAD, the lead needs to summarize the article and "roughly reflect its importance to the topic" as this article has a lot of different aspects to it, it should reflect them. While I'm satisfied with the plot as it is, it also needs a sentence or two about its production and something about historical accuracy. Sorry to seem to draconian, but the purpose here is for the people who just glance at the lead and don't read the whole piece to get a decent brief on what the article contains. — Ed! (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed! Please take another quick look. I don't think we're actually making the progress you expected; the remaining items on your list have only been partially addressed, and radical new changes have been made (particularly in the Cast section), opening new "cans of worms". I have several problems with the latest Cast changes (which I believe represent a net decrase in quality, not increase):
 * Addition of prose to what by style convention is best handled in a simple list;
 * Particularly some of this information may be better placed somewhere else, e.g. production (alternate casting, Hanks' early interest, etc.); Marilyn "isn't very sure of him partaking on the mission", and Mattingly's replacement because of measles, which should go back in Plot, etc.
 * What doesn't apply to the last, is "cruft" (Brad Pitt?) And how reliable are the Travolta and Pitt sources cited?
 * Some of the writing style here is not good (e.g. "astronaut on the Apollo 13", "partaking on the mission", ...)
 * The pictures of Hanks, Paxton and Bacon are unnecessary (and not in style convention), also undesireably non-uniform format. Also, why is the line arbitrarily drawn? What about Sinise (the fourth crew member), and Harris and Quinlan? Reductio ad absurdum; we can't show everybody.
 * Henry Hurt should go back up in the list, not in the last prose paragraph with items such as Cronkite.
 * Perhaps too much coverage, if we have to explain who Lovell's kids are? And Howard's nepotism (Mom and Dad)
 * Precise descriptions of some character's roles (e.g. Sy Liebergott and John Aaron are EECOM's) were given with appropriate wikilinks; increasing the informational value of this reality-based film article by linking it to the real-world equivalents.
 * What was wrong with the way the Cast section had been before this recent GA push? I've a good mind to revert it, and we can make small improvements from there.


 * It seems to me a lot of knee-jerk editing is being done without sufficient deliberation (as I indicated in another post above the description of my 18:54, 21 December 2011 edit.) If it were me doing the review, I surely wouldn't pass it. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's common to add picture signifying main actors with three pictures (Hanks, Paxton and Bacon play the 3 central characters and this is a 3 panel picture). It's not cruft if you're submitting info on casting. and what nepotism? I'm only stating a portion of Howard's family made appearances in the film. I think it only needs some adjusting, not removal. You have to look into the future, Justin, not nitpick about new additions. RAP (talk) 17:52 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not readily aware of any film articles where pictures of cast members were added, and I don't generally see how that increases a reader's understanding of the film. I believe I generally agree with your other points though. Doniago (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fast Five, Tower Heist. RAP (talk) 18:15 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't really see how the pictures in those cases add anything to the articles either. YMMV. Doniago (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel pictures bring a little "blush" to a pale face. And i don't understand Justin too much. It seems that he doesn't want this film to hit GA status. Articles are always entitled to improvement. I guess if we put the actors photos side by side with pictures of the astronauts, it could work. RAP (talk) 19:49 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from Justin before speaking to that, as I felt some of his points might have validity, though the Cast section as prose seems appropriate to me per MOS:FILM. Having pictures of the astronauts with the actors for comparison, would, to my mind, be more useful than having the actors on their own, but I think Justin may still have a valid point regarding how potentially arbitrary it might seem that some of the actors get photos while others do not. At this point I'd value a third opinion. Doniago (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to respond (Biting My Tongue!) while you stepped on my lengthy, thoughtful edit. And BTW, I believe the remark that I don't want the article to reach GA is uncalled for.

The formatting was messed up by hyphens being picked up in my copy/paste recovery, but here it is:JustinTime55 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for use of the term "cruft", if that set your hackles up and caused you to cherry-pick some of my criticisms and not hear the majority of what I said. Note I said a lot of what you added should go elsewhere. I was too busy then to go into all the specific details, but here goes: ("Hanks' interest in doing a movie" to Pre-production and props; John Travolta, ditto; Mattingly - measles to Plot; Harris's comments, to Cast training and filming; Marilyn "isn't very sure about him partaking on the mission" to Plot (with required copyediting); her approval of Quinlan's performance to Reception; Scott technical advisor, to Cast training and filming; "impressed with efforts", to Reception.)
 * Since you said "it only needs some adjusting, not removal", I'll take that as your permission to make these moves (and a fair bit of required copyediting) without an edit war.
 * Hiring one's family members is the definition of nepotism; that's all I meant. You fail to mention Clint Howard. The prior Cast section simply listed these Howards in their roles, with wikilinks. And his wife and daughter in uncredited roles requires citation for verification.
 * This leaves us with what doesn't really contribute to understanding of the article (including the three pictures; see below):
 * Brad Pitt (What role was he considered for? Why is this significant to the film? Is the source listed reliable, or just a gossip page?)
 * "Acclaimed" horror director Corman is not NPOV, and again, if he's not credited, is this noteable, or trivia?
 * "Future Cold Case actor Thom Barry", again questionable notability (trivia) since his role was minor and he was virtually unknown then. Is he in the credits, or is there another citation?
 * I don't mean to "nitpick" and I am certainly no enemy of continuous improvement, but I thought the deal was to work the items Ed identified to complete the review, and again I believe your edits' net result was to set us back from this, not move us forward. (Do I misunderstand the rules? Are the new additions exempt from the review? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the pictures: Two articles do not a standard style make, nor prove that the practice is "common"; especially if you were the one who added them (which I only suspect, but allow I may be wrong.) I agree with Doniago, they just get in the way here and don't increase the reader's understanding (especially on a reality-based film like this; it might make more sense to pair them side-by-side to the real astronauts, but that's not something I advise doing.) And three remains an arbitrary number to include, even for the examples you give. It gives undue weight to only those actors. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ? You couldn't be more wrong, there were 3 astronauts in the disaster, it's a 3 panel photo, so it gives no weight to anyone. It's called nitpicking. It is common on certain articles. And for a GA to pass, it needs more photos than it's poster. And as for Ed's suggestions, i am working with those, i also want to add other things, like casting info. Was Tom Hanks the only actor considered? No. Brad Pitt turned down a role (I can only assume it was Swigert), not revealing which one. Corman and Barry are credited. And no offense, but it does seem you aren't comfortable with the new changes. I can only say, if it's true, suck it up. RAP (talk) 21:50 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Careful reading of MOS:FILM#Cast
I read the MOS guide as giving three options for cast-as-prose:
 * "... 'Casting' ... subsections within the 'Production' section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film" I don't know that we have enough info for something this extensive.
 * " ... provide the cast via the plot summary only. When a character is introduced in the plot summary, the actor playing that role is listed in parentheses immediately following the name of the character. The well-written prose enables the character to be introduced without breaking the flow of the plot" Not a viable option when we have minor characters not noteable enough to include in the plot summary.
 * "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate ... for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary" This seems to me to be the most appropriate option for us, where we would have to be selective in including prose descriptions for minor characters, but again it implies a certain degree of notability. The implication from the example given is that each such character should get his own paragraph, not all run into one.

And I don't see any of this as negating what I said about alternate casting decisions, real-world persons' reactions, etc. fitting better into the existing Production subsections. Also, note consistent use of the phrase well-written prose. JustinTime55 (talk)

Expansion of production section
As for production, we may need to add principal photography history and filming locations, as well as how the special effects in the film were created. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cast pictures
These pictures look ridiculous the way they are:
 * Paxton's head is way too big (2 or 3 times) bigger than Hanks' and Bacon's, making him look unduly prominent.
 * The picture of Bacon needs to be cropped to remove the excess space to the sides and below his neck; the whole picture is too big and detracts from a portrait.
 * Hanks' picture could have the excess background cropped from the sides; it doesn't have to be that wide.
 * They could all be scaled down just a bit smaller.

Rusty, I hope you are over your recent emotional problems and can discuss and make changes in a reasonable atmosphere of consensus and co-operation. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Crop the photos. Easy peezy. RAP (talk) 21:43 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree crop the photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.220 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

DVD Commentary
The article makes several references to the "2005 DVD Commentary" by the Lovells. This commentary was also included with the original DVD. The only real additions of the 10th anniversary release are a remastered picture and the inclusion of the inferior Imax cut on the second disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.45.5 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Apollo 13 blu-ray
Could someone get a photo of the Apollo 13 bluray edition on the wiki for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.62.86 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Space Camp activity
I was a Space Camp (Space Academy Level I) councillor when the main Apollo 13 movie cast attended, and was one of the councillors that spent the weekend with them (I ran their simulated Space Shuttle mission). While the cast did take some extra time in the command module simulator during their US Space & Rocket Center museum tour, they did not go into the lunar lander sim (it is closed with plexiglass). Neither simulator is connected to anything, so it is not possible to run any missions. There were also no astronauts present that weekend. If they worked with Lovell and/or Scott, it was not at Space Camp. I'm not sure what change should be made, other than to remove the Lovell/Scott reference completely. Cmadams (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing your knowledge. There are no citations given for the first two paragraphs, so I tagged that, and also marked the simulator sentence as dubious with a discussion link here. At least the phrase referring to the LM should probably be removed. However, we need an objective published source one way or the other. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the space-camp bit came from the official production notes (Reference #13): "To become acclimated to a space-like environment, Hanks, Paxton, Bacon, Sinise and Howard went to NASA’s Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama. At this facility, they engaged in training exercises inside a simulated command module and lunar module with Hanks’ real-life counterpart, Jim Lovell, and David Scott, commander of Apollo 15. The actors also learned the various functions of the 500 switches, toggles and buttons that operate a spacecraft." DrNegative (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that has at least one other error: Space Camp is not part of or funded by NASA. They did visit NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center that weekend, and I'd suspect the production materials mashed everything together.  If there's still a functioning Apollo simulator, I suspect it would be at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas (since that was where the actual training took place).  Unfortunately, I don't have any mementos or notes from my weekend spent with the actors; we were not allowed any pictures, autographs, etc.  I did meet and talk with Jim Lovell about working with the cast later when he came to Huntsville for a book signing (we talked especially about Tom Hanks, who spent time at the Lovells' home, also in Houston, which would make more sense for any simulator work).  The Space Camp weekend was kept quiet (we 5 councillors didn't know who we'd be training, we were just told it was another corporate camp), so I don't know where to find any news stories from the summer of 1994.  We trained them on the Space Shuttle Endeavour simulator; AFAIK Space Camp/USS&RC has never had a functioning Apollo simulator (they're not wired up to anything).  Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon, and I believe Gary Sinise did sit/lay in the Apollo capsule simulator, but just looked around and talked some about the capsule being built for the movie.  I met a number of the Apollo astronauts that summer (it was the 25th anniversary of the Moon landing), but I don't remember Dave Scott coming to Space Camp at all that year.Cmadams (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a biographical film
According to Biographical film:
 * A biographical film, ... is a film that dramatizes the life of an actual person or people. Such films show the life of a historical person and the central character’s real name is used. They differ from films “based on a true story” or “historical films” in that they attempt to comprehensively tell a person’s life story or at least the most historically important years of their lives. (Emphasis added)

This film is not the life story of Jim Lovell, Gene Kranz, or anyone else. It is a dramatic telling of Apollo 13, and thus qualifies as a docudrama. Please stop changing this. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Powering up the Command Module as it was portrayed in the movie.
Something bothered Me about how Mattingly (Gary Sinese) and his team of engineers decision to find the proper procedures in powering up the Command Module (CM). I understand the necessity of working with materials that can only be found on the Spacecraft to effectively remove the carbon dioxide from the air, they had to adapt an existing O2 scrubber from one spacecraft to the other and could only use materials that they had with them. But the logic in re-creating the identical conditions from the spacecraft to the simulator appears to be illogical. Reason is Mattinglys sole purpose was to come up with a sequence of powering up only the necessary components without going over the available amperage and causing a fault that would shut everything off and prevent anything from having power.

This power up sequence was needed ASAP and by darkening the simulator and only using a flashlight that the astronauts had with them and working continuously without rest is very counterproductive. It was not to show the astronauts how to power up in "there conditions". All they needed was the sequence itself. I'm just saying that Mattingly could have been finished and done with figuring out the procedure, long before what was showed in the movie if he would have worked with proper lighting and rest. I do hope I made my point clear to you and if I am missing the point, please tell me...(~ ~ ~ ~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunn3rr50 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not having the instruments display actual data might make you miss important things that would need to be done. And they were working against a short and hard deadline, so working without or a bare minimum of rest is the only choice you have. The rest is artistic liberty. Several things in this movie were pictured a little bit more dramatic than they were in reality (the initial docking and the manual course correction burn for example), but this was meant to glue people to their movie seats, not to be 100% exact. For a blockbuster, its amazingly exact, and scenes like Mattingly becoming the hero of re-entry are the slack Howard should get cut. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Crew hears bang 93 seconds after tank stir.
Apollo 13 Timeline, Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference, NASA History Series, Office of Policy and Plans, Richard W. Orloff, Sept. 2004. See "Oxygen tank #2 fans on. Stabilization control system electrical disturbance indicated a power transient. 055:53:20."

-

The following is a little bit different, but a request for a tank stir is not the same as a tank stir.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-91hhrg47591/pdf/GPO-CHRG-91hhrg47591.pdf (see page 16)

'At about 55:53, flight controllers in the Mission Control Center at JISC requested the crew to turn on the cryogenic system fans and heaters, since a master alarm on the CJI Caution and Warning System had indicated a low pressure condition in the cryogenic hydrogen tank #1. This tank had reached the low end of its normal operating pressure range several times previously during the flight. Swigert acknowledged the fan cycle request and data indicate that current was applied to the oxygen tank #2 fan motors at 55:53:20.

'About 2% minutes later, at 55:54:53.5, telemetry from the spacecraft was lost almost totally for 1.8 seconds. During the period of data loss, the Caution and Warning System alerted the crew to a low voltage condition on DC Main Bus B, one of the two main buses which supply electrical power for the command module. At about the same time, the crew heard a loud “bang” and realized that a problem existed in the spacecraft.'
 * posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your fingers slipped on the keys, right? "At about 55:53, ..." "About 2½ minutes later, at 55.54:58.5, telemetry from the spacecraft was lost almost totally for 1.8 seconds." This is consistent with the times quoted in the Apollo 13 article; by 65 hr GET they were back on the free-return home. Your point about the delay is well taken, though. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, my fingers did not slip. I just cut and pasted, so very little chance of error on my behalf (although still possible!).  And obviously I can be mistaken about twenty-five different things, freely admit that, I'm a human being after all.  But on this, I think it is a conflict in the sources.  Cool Nerd (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem must be in optical character recognition software which Adobe Acrobat must use. (This must be what makes it able to do amazing things like character searches on what looks like printed text.) There is no conflict in the source; if you put eyeballs on the PDF you linked above, you will find the times given there all start with 55 hours (not 65 or 66), which is consistent with the GET of the accident (also the Apollo 13 timeline link above corroborates that's when the accident happened.) The lesson is, obviously we have to be careful cutting and pasting directly from a PDF. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct. The first number should be 55:53.  I will correct that number and check/correct the others.  Thanks.  Cool Nerd (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow....... Okay......... Dance3600 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rating
Please add the rating! PG-13? pg? R? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrepoiy (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may need to look at WP:FILMRATINGS. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Release
Apollo 13 just came out on a 20th annniversary Blu-ray release with a new bonus feature, this should be worth mentioning. 104.254.201.204 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I could not find an original press release from Universal regarding this new version. As I understand, it is a complete remaster from the original 35 mm film. It's already being sold in stores, and some reviews states that the image quality is much improved. EV1TE (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Docudrama?
Isn't it supposed to be a biographical thriller or sci-fi thriller? -Theironminer (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Theironminer (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would it be sci-fi? It's based closely on a historical event. I also wouldn't call it a thriller. It's a drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Apollo 13 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401082619/http://www.tracksounds.com:80/reviews/apollo13.htm to http://www.tracksounds.com/reviews/apollo13.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203060101/http://www.nationalspacesymposium.org/symposium-awards to http://www.nationalspacesymposium.org/symposium-awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 13 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728212227/http://voices.yahoo.com/film-casting-might-been-john-travolta-591979.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/film-casting-might-been-john-travolta-591979.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604135005/http://www.imax.com/apollo13/pressmaterials/ProductionNotes.pdf to http://www.imax.com/apollo13/pressmaterials/ProductionNotes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)