Talk:First Man (film)

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)


 * I agree with your assessment, and I would support scaling back the descriptions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * Okay, let's talk about this review again. I'm of the opinion that if this review is to be included in this article, the part calling it a "right-wing fetish object" should be dropped, as it is just a provocative statement that was chosen to make a good click-bait headline. Sandrobost (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The review's article body says "right-wing fetish object" where the title says "accidental right-wing fetish object". Primarily for this inconsistency, I'm fine with changing it and have re-worded it here. However, the "Critical reception" section is currently imbalanced. Metacritic shows out of 56 reviews, 54 are positive and two are mixed. Essentially, there is too much coverage devoted to non-positive reviews. I would suggest cutting it down. I think it would be fine to keep Brody's review despite such a culling since I recall seeing high-level sources mention it as part of the coverage. But we don't need the others, I think. Pinging, . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If Metacritic says 96% of reviews are positive and Erik has culled four of the five negative reviews from the article, there must be 125 positive reviews somewhere. Anyone fancy finding them and adding them to the article?! It all sounds a bit unbelievable. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What does not seem believable? WP:PROPORTION says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Similar logic under WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." A well-received film should not have anywhere near half of its critical reception sampling non-positive coverage. Of course, we have to consider proportionality with the number of reviews to be sampled. There's no exact number, but there is probably a number too low and a number too high. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The solution would be to add the positive reviews, rather than delete negative ones (from highly respected sources), especially after someone has taken time to inlcude the criticism and cite it. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That works too, but I think the law of diminishing returns applies to the number of reviews being added. The more we add, the less readable the section becomes. Unfortunately, this section is not written well, simply pulling one sentence from each review, which is a gross oversimplification. I generally prefer at least 2-3 sentences per review, unless one sentence can truly encapsulate the critic's sentiments. So if someone were to sample the reviews more thoughtfully, we'd have more in-depth wording and even less reason to add more reviews. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the now-deleted four-word phrase from the Brody review quite clearly "encapsulate(s) the critic's sentiments" better than the current revision. Micpoc (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Link to my removal of some negative reviews here., , any thoughts on Sionk's points? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the differences, albeit minor, between the offending words as they appear in the title and in the body of the review: it is worth noting that titles in publications are frequently created by editors based on the reviews, rather than by the writers themselves who write the articles. This is why I had quoted the article itself specifically, rather than the headline. Micpoc (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. The reasons for removing that have been provided - “click bait troll review”, “virtue signaling” “disingenuous”, of no “value”, that’s it’s just a “provocative statement”, that it is an “opinion piece” and not a “review” (!!!) - are all far more subjective and, in my opinion, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia than actually permitting the review to remain intact. One removal suggested that it was inappropriate to have two differing reviews from the same publication. However, this has occurred on Wikipedia before… with the same two writers from The New Yorker! It can be found on the page for Birdman, the 2014 film by Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Note that I did not post either of these reviews, so clearly there is precedent for this that has nothing to do with me. As to the notion that I provided no good reason for its inclusion, I will simply state again: it is a significant critical review by a noted film critic, one who appears on Wikipedia multiple times, who has his own page here, and which was written for a magazine (The New Yorker) whose legacy of film criticism is, possibly, the most important one in the history of American periodicals. Micpoc (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd add that it seems a contradiction for the remover to say, on the one hand, too many reviews make the section unreadable and, on the other hand, the reviews were removed because they were summarised too briefly. A brief line encapsulating reviews by respected critics or publications would seem to be a sensible approach for a film that has had so much real-world reaction. It could possibly result in a paragraph of the more negative comments and a (hopefully) longer paragrapg of positive reactions. Sionk (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not a contradiction. Putting the sample-length matter aside, I removed some negative reviews because there were too many sampled for the critical consensus the film received. Even if all the samples had 2-3 sentences, I would have removed the same reviews anyway. I mentioned the sample-length because you seemed to imply that the section was too small as a result. If we expanded on the reviews currently being sampled, then we would have a bigger section without the need to add more reviews, positive or negative.


 * Another point I want to add, is that we can have more summary sentences upfront identifying what critics in general liked or disliked about the film. We can't cherry-pick these trends; a source would need to report it for us. Essentially, we only sample reviews to give a rough idea of what critics thought, but we can only do that on an individual basis. This is done because summary sentences are not routinely available for all films. The more summary sentences we can find and include, the less need we have for sampling individual reviews. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Agreed, especially on the "Political stance of the film" section. The fact that two completely opposite opinions are stated shows that this is not a real notable "controversy", but simply observations made by those journalists. I also agree on shortening the American flag section, although Donald Trump's comments seem notable enough to include here. Sandrobost (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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.2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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."2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should we respect an ignorant article that says Armstrong planted the flag? It was Aldrin. Anyway, as Sandrobost says, "it is purely hypothetical." — O'Dea  (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
Is the scene showing Armstrong dropping Karen's bracelet into Little West crater accurate? Would the article benefit from a section on Historical Accuracy? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources would be required to say anything about historical inaccuracy, and there seems to be none. The original book, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong can be easily consulted to see if historian James R. Hansen included it, which I suspect to be the case. The astronauts were permitted to carry personal objects with them, and I remember hearing at least one other Apollo astronaut left something from one of his children on the Moon. I doubt this would be something the screenwriter just threw in. I saw no obvious, glaring inaccuracies in the film. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This piece from Esquire says that there was a period of time where Armstrong wandered to the Little West Crater, of which it's unknown what he did. So it's possible that he did in fact leave something from his daughter. Maybe this is worth including? Sandrobost (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "There seems to be none"? Googling "first man" historical accuracy shows numerous results like this, this, this, this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "There is one part of the film that’s not based in fact, but informed conjecture—the moment Armstrong drops his daughter Karen’s bracelet into the Little West Crater on the surface of the moon. In the real-life sequence of events on the moon, Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went through a carefully choreographed series of movements, save for a brief moment when Armstrong went off script to stand at the edge of the crater. Hansen, after spending years with the Armstrongs, speculated that, perhaps at this moment, the astronaut had left something of Karen’s behind.: See: https://www.popsci.com/first-man-accuracy Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the book about Armstrong dropping personal items on the moon. Nor have I ever seen it mentioned anywhere in the many detailed and authoritative accounts I have read of the mission. Near the end of his moonwalk, Armstrong opportunistically (on the spur of the moment) ran 60 metres to the crater he had seen before landing, to explore it. He took pictures of it, and of the lunar module from that vantage point, then returned to the lunar module to finish his moonwalk. It would have been time consuming to retrieve a personal item from the pocket on his lower leg, which was, in any case, occupied by the contingency sample, and he didn't have time for such an awkward retrieval under the strict timeline, especially since Mission Control had told the crew to complete their surface activities. — O'Dea  (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Dirty, rusty... This is obviously an editor's synthesis. He appears to be guessing that since the spacecraft were single use, and had never been used in space, they should appear new. In reality the vehicles were wrung through the wringer before the missions. Tested, and run through simulations for months. They did get some wear, and dirt.

98.164.71.229 (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Janet Armstrong section
Is this subsection of the "Reception" section really necessary? It does not seem notable to me. Sandrobost (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way is it not notable? It's sourced to international news coverage and directly related to the film's release. Sionk (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's unclear to me what the section is supposed to say. This is not a controversy or a big part of the film's reception, and many biographical films spark some new interest in the subject matter. Not to mention how short it is. Does it really require its own section? Sandrobost (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil Armstrong is one of the most famous people on the planet. Janet Armstrong was almost unknown, so the fact she played such a major part of the film and attracted her own attention is noteworthy. It requires it's own subheading because it's not 'Critical response' or a reaction to not seeing the stars and stripes. I'm open to other suggestions as to where it might go (I considered writing a separate article about her, but imagined it would get short shrift from the male dominated editors on Wikipedia). I imagine if the sub-section was longer, you'd say it was too long anyway :) Sionk (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no I completely understand that it attracted attention to her. It's just that this subsection has nothing to say beside the fact that it attracted attention, nothing noteworthy or interesting besides her death. I personally, after seeing the film, also looked for an article about her on Wikipedia (or at least a decent amount of information in the Neil Armstrong article) but was surprised that it didn't exist, especially considering that they had been married for 38 years. Sandrobost (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subsection is not of value to have, as it stands. I don't know about the French source, but the other two are fast-facts and a tabloid. It isn't enough to sustain a subsection. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A biography of Janet Armstrong would be inappropriate here, because the article is about the film (and reactions to it). There is scope to expand the sub-section slightly, which would be a positive solution. But if an editor thinks there isn't even enough sources to sustain a one line sub-section, I doubt there will be an appetite for a full article about her, in the typical Wikipedia spirit of erasing women's contributions to history. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A full article is definitely possible because the film has led to significant coverage about the real-life person per WP:BASIC, which would override WP:INVALIDBIO. I think there are two distinct kinds of coverage -- that about the real-life person, and that about Foy's portrayal of her. The latter is more appropriate to cover here. Saying that the film has led to more focus on the real-life Janet needs a better and high-level source, and I think that can be conveyed in a sentence or two if a source is found. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Flop
Where in the article can we add that this movie was a box office flop? Can i mention it in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.185.101.150 (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This should be mentioned in the lead section later in the film's run, with retrospective articles talking about the film's underperformance preferably being cited. The disappointing performance is mentioned in the "Box office" section, which is sufficient for now. It has yet to open in four (major) markets: Germany, Mexico, Columbia and Japan. For all we know it overperforms there and manages to break even. It's simply too early. Sandrobost (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Columbia? Really? 103.40.150.146 (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't a flop 137.188.108.55 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Budget
The budget section is INCORRECT! A person who doesn’t check their facts has posted the budget at 59-70 million and locked it there. It WAS 70 million but it’s been made abundantly clear (through the citations that even they post) that tax cuts have reduced it to 59 million. BoxOfficeMojo has even corrected it to 59 million. Someone needs to unlock it and correct it once and for all! It makes a significant impact on the audience’s POV of its box office revenue. S26205229 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because you didn't explain them. I wouldn't say it's been made abundantly clear that the budget is $59m. Box Office Mojo isn't a definitive source, they can also be wrong. Do you have a good source saying the budget if $59m after tax cuts? If so, I'd be happy to change the budget in the article. Sandrobost (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the Variety article you were probably talking about (mentioning the budget being $70m before tax incentives and closer to $60m after) and have added it to the article. Sandrobost (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox_film "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."
 * It was incorrect to delete the Hollywood Reporter source, and the range should be presented.
 * Some editors prefer to present the different budget figure, indicating that one is the "gross" and the other is "net", which would also be acceptable. -- 109.79.176.202 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case, I find ranging the budget from $59-70 million unnecessary, especially when it’s been labeled on IMDB and Box Office Mojo, which lists the budget and tracks the revenue, as $59 million. As for sources? They were already listed! The Hollywood Reporter and other articles listed were rounded or written before the clarification was made. It’s been widely stated that $59 million was the budget, because $70 million was before taxes. S26205229 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the first comment - it was made in reply to someone who messaged me quite rudely. I didn’t know I had created a forum! My bad. S26205229 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, please bear with me if some of my comments appear blunt. The first, as I said, was an accident and not intended for anyone on this forum. Sometimes I acccidentally send things somewhere and I don’t know how! I’m newer at this, so please bear with me. S26205229 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your direct comments, and I understand your opinion, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Even if you find it unnecessary the documentation says to list both. Variety said "production budget was around $70 million, but when tax incentives were taken out, the cost of the film was closer to $60 million" and this is why I would prefer to list the higher figure because it represents the actual production budget rather than the cost after taxes, which is not the same thing, and the label claims to be listing the production budget not the "cost" (and the true cost, would include other expenses such as P&A). The failure of editors to agree in the past resulted in the instructions not to cherry pick.
 * More important than attention grabbing figures in the Infobox, what is needed is a proper explanation in the article body of the various figures, in either Production or Box office sections, which unfortunately this article does not yet include. -- 109.77.214.206 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Depressive characters
Neil Armstrong decribed as a calm man in documents and seen with smiling on some photos. In the movies he shown with depressed, frustrated. I think NASA psychology test dont allow such a person to run such a mission. "Ice Commander" shouldnt hit the console when landing. I think article should talk about it... Beyond silence 21:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're suggesting injecting opinion or original research. If so, that would be a bad idea. If not, can you clarify the types of changes you propose?
 * By the way, it was Alan Shepard, not Neil Armstrong, who was the "Icy Commander". TJRC (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

About the flag
It says that both parties condemed that. However the source only shows republican politicians. Where are the democrats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure democrats didn't buy into the made up controversy. Spanneraol (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't say both parties "condemned that"; the lead says both parties debated the issue; presumably Republicans opposed omission of the flag raising while Democrats defended it. And there is no reason to call it a "made-up controversy". JustinTime55 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure cause the flag IS in the film.. the "controversy" was created by certain individuals to score political points and stoke outrage. Spanneraol (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No -- the controversy is not over the flag's presence or absence in the film, but about the choice to not show the astronauts raising the flag.
 * Congratulations, you got me to fall for your bait; the bottom line is there is nothing wrong with the way the article stands and we shouldn't be arguing the controversy. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin image
Is this necessary? Why should an actual image of Buzz Aldrin with the flag be included in this article? Soronast (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed both, of which I placed:

X1\ (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Factual errors
I've removed the 'Factual errors' section, added back recently. Though this time there were citations, these were not about First Man, or factual errors in First man. Unless a secondary source has identified factual errors in the film, and published info about them, Wikipedia editors shouldn't really be discovering factual errors themselves (or at least they shouldn't be adding their WP:OR here). Sionk (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence of article...
The opening sentence reads, "First Man is a 2018 American biographical science fiction drama film directed...".

Did I miss something? Science fiction? Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theories, the film depicts historical *facts*, not historical *fictions*. I think this needs to be changed to a more appropriate genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.33.111 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Subtle vandalism added by this edit, now reverted. Thanks for pointing this out. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)