PDA

View Full Version : Post your obscure "Apollo 13" nitpicks



Daryl71
2004-Mar-11, 02:41 AM
Even though it strives for realism, Apollo 13 is riddled with obscure technical errors. I'll start off with one. Oh, and you're a true PAN if you understand this one :D
Right after Lovell announces that he sees Oxygen venting from the Service Module, there's a brief close-up of the pressure/quantity guages for the cryogenic tanks. Even though the spacecraft is less than 1/4th of the way into the mission, the No.1 Hydrogen tank only reads 60% quantity, the No. 2 65%.
No wonder they were so concerned about loss of power :o

AGN Fuel
2004-Mar-11, 03:47 AM
Even though it strives for realism, Apollo 13 is riddled with obscure technical errors. I'll start off with one. Oh, and you're a true PAN if you understand this one :D
Right after Lovell announces that he sees Oxygen venting from the Service Module, there's a brief close-up of the pressure/quantity guages for the cryogenic tanks. Even though the spacecraft is less than 1/4th of the way into the mission, the No.1 Hydrogen tank only reads 60% quantity, the No. 2 65%.
No wonder they were so concerned about loss of power :o

I've posted mine before - seeing the Fra Mauro landing site and the Tsiolkovsky crater at the same time is quite a feat!

For all that, they got far more right than any other 'space' movie I've ever seen before.

Starbuck
2004-Mar-11, 06:55 AM
It's not technical, but...

Fred Haise didn't sneak a copy of "Spirit in the Sky" on board, then play it during their broadcast. "Also sprach Zarathustra," the theme to 2001, was what was actually played. Tom Hanks makes a reference to this. It seems like a fairly transparent ploy to pad the soundtrack (which is one of only 20 cds I own) with "era" music.

AstroSmurf
2004-Mar-11, 09:09 AM
* In the post-party scene in the beginnning of the movie, the moon should be just a crescent - Apollo 11 (and all the others) took place during lunar morning.

* During the launch, do the umbilical arms swing the wrong way, or is it just me? Anyway, they should all separate at the same time, not separately (though it is a neat scene).

* There are some details of the MLP close to the tail of the Saturn V which are missing: the hold-down arms and the tail service masts simply aren't there. Which makes me wonder what is supporting the rocket 8-[

* The TLI burn takes place when the Moon is on the other side of the Earth, so it would not be visible...

* The entire burn maneuver strikes me as rather strange. The way they wanted to alter the trajectory, the descent stage engine would need to be run perpendicular to the direction of travel. This also fits better with being able to see the Earth through the LM window; if they were oriented the way the movie shows it, it seems to me that the CSM would block the view.

Oh, and the flames of the engine are of course much more ragged and uneven than the real thing, which would have been smooth and (I think) near-transparent, except for the transient.

What else? There are of course minor differences between the transcripts and the movie dialogue, but those aren't really technical arguments. However, I wish they'd showed the light-speed delay better - it would have been noticeable for most of the scenes.

DataCable
2004-Mar-11, 10:21 AM
* The entire burn maneuver strikes me as rather strange. The way they wanted to alter the trajectory, the descent stage engine would need to be run perpendicular to the direction of travel. This also fits better with being able to see the Earth through the LM window; if they were oriented the way the movie shows it, it seems to me that the CSM would block the view.
For that matter, they weren't even looking the right way, were they? Hanks was trying to keep the earth in his view while looking out the forward LM window, not the docking window, am I remembering that correctly?

And even though I'm not fully aware of the physics involved, I did think that performing the burn in the direction of travel looked a little odd. "Ok, so they're accellerating toward Earth. What does that accomplish?" But I suppose for a general movie audience, with little concept of raw Newtonian physics, would be confused if they'd tried to depict a perpendicular burn. "What? They're going to miss the earth completely now!"

jt-3d
2004-Mar-11, 01:12 PM
Ok, let's talk low tech here since I'm not a science dude. During lift off, the rocket is still clearing the tower yet the wives are looking up to what looks like above 60 degrees and crying and so forth. Cut to mission control and then a very cool shot from above the rocket. Then, BAM, close up of Mrs. Lovell looking back down to what seems like just above the tower.
For me, this ruins the whole scene. Swap those two shots and it would have been perfect. I don't see how they could have gotten it so wrong when the rest of the flick is so very good.

ToSeek
2004-Mar-11, 02:11 PM
The markings on the Saturn V are those of the test vehicle, not the ones actually launched.

The logo in the white room indicates Rockwell International. At the time of the mission, the company was called North American Rockwell.

Glom
2004-Mar-11, 02:17 PM
Jim Lovell's corvette was blue not red.

LOS when the spacecraft goes over the far side of the moon is accompanied by a shot of them crossing the terminator when they should have crossed over the terminator much earlier before LOS.

tracer
2004-Mar-11, 03:55 PM
Here's a whole passle of inaccuracies in Apollo 13 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs). :P

kucharek
2004-Mar-11, 04:18 PM
You may be interested in this site (http://myweb.accessus.net/~090/apollo13.html) with a commented script of the movie.

Harald

Glom
2004-Mar-11, 04:38 PM
They missed out the bit about MCC-5. It would also be nice if as well as correcting errors, they'd elaborate on technical points like change to Abort Mode 1B, the cutoff of the S-IC inboard motor, the PC+2 burn, the SHe tank exploding, etc.

tracer
2004-Mar-12, 04:39 PM
Yeah, but then the movie would be 7 hours long. ;)

Wingnut Ninja
2004-Mar-12, 07:45 PM
So, the part where Fred Haise battled the alien queen in a power loader, that didn't really happen? :(

Normandy6644
2004-Mar-13, 01:38 AM
I didn't like the moon being there. Because, as well all know, there is no moon. (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)

ToSeek
2004-Mar-13, 01:47 AM
Yeah, but then the movie would be 7 hours long. ;)

And this is a bad thing?

NASA Fan
2004-Mar-13, 04:38 PM
The Houston scenes were not filmed in Houston
--- Just because Houston had changed too much in the 25 years between the actual events and the filming is no reason to not show it.

I was lucky enough to hear Jim Lovell speak on the 25 aniversery of Apollo 8, and it was for that mission that he used the line about he and his buddies going to the moon rather than him (Lovell) going on a family trip for Christmas. In the movie they turned that funny line into spring break for the family.

milli360
2004-Mar-13, 06:54 PM
The Houston scenes were not filmed in Houston
--- Just because Houston had changed too much in the 25 years between the actual events and the filming is no reason to not show it.
And deprive everyone of the thousands of anachronisms to nitpick. :)

Grand_Lunar
2004-Mar-13, 08:47 PM
Maybe Ron Howard will release a special "Extended Director's Edition" like Peter Jackson did with the first two LOTRs. A special 7 hour edition.

Here's one pick for you: Buzz Aldrin has no hair to speak of in real life. Couldn't they've shaved the actor portraying him?

Also, from what I've read on IMDB, the Saturn 5 doens't even match the test rockets scheme.

Also, judging from the scenes with the LOS and lunar sunrise, more than half the moon is in sunlight. Guess its really a neutron star then, huh?

And just for fun: THERE'S NO SOUND IN SPACE!!! :wink:

Glom
2004-Mar-13, 09:16 PM
Maybe Ron Howard will release a special "Extended Director's Edition" like Peter Jackson did with the first two LOTRs. A special 7 hour edition.

I would like more backstory of what caused the accident, referencing the Apollo 10 incident and the CDDT.


And just for fun: THERE'S NO SOUND IN SPACE!!! :wink:

And neither are the stars visible.

tracer
2004-Mar-13, 11:45 PM
Also, judging from the scenes with the LOS and lunar sunrise, more than half the moon is in sunlight. Guess its really a neutron star then, huh?
You mean, because it would have to be rotating in the opposite direction from Apollo 13's orbit, at least as rapidly as Apollo 13 was orbiting it?

Nah, it wouldn't have to be a neutron star to hold together at such a low rotational speed. An ordinary garden variety run-of-the-mill white dwarf would do just as well.

Grand_Lunar
2004-Mar-14, 02:17 AM
Also, judging from the scenes with the LOS and lunar sunrise, more than half the moon is in sunlight. Guess its really a neutron star then, huh?
You mean, because it would have to be rotating in the opposite direction from Apollo 13's orbit, at least as rapidly as Apollo 13 was orbiting it?

Nah, it wouldn't have to be a neutron star to hold together at such a low rotational speed. An ordinary garden variety run-of-the-mill white dwarf would do just as well.

I referred to a neutron star because you could see more that half of its surface due to graviational distortion. Or something like that. I wasn't reffering to rotational speed. And in that case, for the moon's position to shift against the sun to allow for more than 1/2 to be in sunlight, it would have to have a faster orbit. Kind of like Mercury. Or not. I'm confusing myself now. ](*,)

Matt McIrvin
2004-Mar-14, 03:58 AM
The single biggest inaccuracy in the movie is that the phases of the Earth and Moon are treated inconsistently throughout it, apparently deliberately so for dramatic effect. At one point, if I recall correctly, both the Earth and Moon are depicted as full, even though the spacecraft is in between them, which would make this optically impossible. At another point, the spacecraft's passage to the far side of the Moon is depicted as passage over the terminator to the dark side, even though this would not have been the case at that time-- and then, later on, the astronauts can see things on the far side, which obviously would not have been possible if the whole far side had been dark.

My impression was that the script was actually far more scrupulously accurate than the special effects, which were tweaked more for storytelling purposes.

Wally
2004-Mar-15, 01:32 PM
and then, later on, the astronauts can see things on the far side, which obviously would not have been possible if the whole far side had been dark.

My impression was that the script was actually far more scrupulously accurate than the special effects, which were tweaked more for storytelling purposes.

Perhaps they had backed off of the "far side is the dark side" treatment by this time, thus the dark side could have been being lit by earthshine, making viewing possible.

Donnie B.
2004-Mar-18, 07:33 PM
Not a nitpick -- a positive comment for a change... =D>

Watching Apollo 13 the other day, and being aware that all the launch footage was CG, not stock, I noticed something interesting.

The F1 exhaust plumes were shown with remarkable accuracy, right down to the "dark band" just below the engine bell (caused, as we discussed before in the LC forum, by the turbine exhaust which is released in an annular ring to help keep the bell relatively cool).

This little detail is just another indication of the lengths that Ron Howard went to in maintaining the accuracy of the film. There are, of course, areas where historical accuracy is stretched a bit (the on-board conflicts, merging several characters into one, mentioning widely-separated lunar features in one scene, and so on). But the technical details of the hardware, and the language in the MOCR and communications with the spacecraft, were done very well indeed.

Glom
2004-Mar-18, 08:14 PM
In the Lovells' commentary, Jim Lovell said that when Ron Howard set out to build his own MOCR set, the technical advisors thought he did such a good job they couldn't tell if they were in the set or the real one.

I think what James Tichenor says is true. Only bad CG is ever acknowledged because good CG blends into the background too well to be noticed (which applies to the launch sequence). Similarly, only historical inaccuracy gets noticed.

AstroSmurf
2004-Mar-19, 10:42 AM
The exhaust flames weren't CG from what I understood, though I have no idea how they actually did it. Looks very nifty, though =D>

More nitpicks, mostly from the launch sequence:

* During launch, the F-1 engines were covered in asbestos insulation with a foil-like "batted" covering. The insulation was missing in the movie.

* I'm not certain about this, but doesn't the BPC cover the hatch window?

* BPC jettison is reported by the CapCom well before Tom Hanks says "tower jet"

* There's a slight delay between the line "SECO" and the engine cut-off being shown. (yeah, I know this is just whining, but I notice it, ok)

* In the "dream" where Tom Hanks is bouncing around on the moon, there's an unmistakable swirl of dust around his footsteps. Guess they should've shot that scene in a vacuum chamber...

And a last one:

* Fred Haise didn't chew bubblegum :P

kucharek
2004-Mar-19, 10:48 AM
* I'm not certain about this, but doesn't the BPC cover the hatch window?

The hatch window wasn't blocked by the BPC (though I don't know if there was a pane in the BPC or just a cut-out. According to "Virtual Apollo", the CDR could also watch through is rendezvous window.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/boost.htm

Harald

StarStuff
2004-Mar-21, 02:00 PM
And a last one:

* Fred Haise didn't chew bubblegum :P

:lol: Good one! I'm just curious - how did you ever find that out? :-?

AstroSmurf
2004-Mar-25, 02:34 PM
I think it was in the Ron Howard commentary, but I may have encountered it elsewhere.

AstroSmurf
2004-Oct-07, 09:29 AM
I spotted another one the other day, which shows that:

a) I've seen this movie too many times
b) I know too much about the Apollo program
c) I need to get a life

During LM jettison (just before reentry), the probe assembly on the CM is jettisoned along with the LM. In the movie, it's shown still attached (though it's gone as it should be when you see the CM floating in the ocean later).

Maksutov
2004-Oct-07, 11:58 AM
Maybe Ron Howard will release a special "Extended Director's Edition" like Peter Jackson did with the first two LOTRs. A special 7 hour edition.

I would like more backstory of what caused the accident, referencing the Apollo 10 incident and the CDDT.


And just for fun: THERE'S NO SOUND IN SPACE!!! :wink:

And neither are the stars visible.

Actually the stars are visible, if there's no bright object in your astronaut-eye's field-of-view (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec2000/977675217.As.r.html) causing your pupil to dilate.

Paul Beardsley
2004-Oct-07, 12:25 PM
One that struck me - a raised thumb at arm's length is shown to cover the moon exactly. I remember learning (from my constellations book when I was 13) that one should use one's little finger.

Of course, the raised thumb has a distinctly positive meaning which makes it a better choice than the little finger.

Waarthog
2004-Oct-07, 03:13 PM
Guenter Wendt was up in the white room the whole time and not in the suit fitting room.

tracer
2004-Oct-08, 12:36 AM
Guenter Wendt was up in the white room the whole time and not in the suit fitting room.
So that's where Guenter wendt!

TinFoilHat
2004-Oct-08, 12:52 PM
One thing that bothered me - the exhaust plume in most of the launch shots isn't long enough. It should be several times the length of the rocket itself. They also don't show shock waves creating momentary rings of condensation around the rocket, or recirculated exhaust climbing halfway up the first stage just before staging.

waynek
2004-Oct-12, 05:07 AM
The markings on the Saturn V are those of the test vehicle, not the ones actually launched.

I hate to nitpick your nitpick, but I'm not so sure about this one. I watched the IMAX trailer here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/apollo_13_the_imax_experience/trailers.php), and compared it to the info I found here (http://www.apollosaturn.com/markings/mguide.htm), and to first order the movie rocket looks like the flight vehicles to me(specifically the fourth stage skirt roll patern and first stage intertank paint). Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

The reason this caught my attention is that my uncle accused me of the same error with my Estes Saturn 5 model and I had to go back and verify that I was right. While it's true that the test vehicle had more roll markings, they all had a significant amount of them.

ToSeek
2004-Oct-12, 02:06 PM
The markings on the Saturn V are those of the test vehicle, not the ones actually launched.

I hate to nitpick your nitpick, but I'm not so sure about this one. I watched the IMAX trailer here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/apollo_13_the_imax_experience/trailers.php), and compared it to the info I found here (http://www.apollosaturn.com/markings/mguide.htm), and to first order the movie rocket looks like the flight vehicles to me(specifically the fourth stage skirt roll patern and first stage intertank paint). Anyone else want to weigh in on this?


Flight vehicle (http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1969/medium/KSC-69PC-0447.jpg) - solid band at top of third stage

Test vehicle (http://www.decaturco.k12.in.us/space/spaceimages/sat5_as500f.jpg) - solid band at or near base of service module, intermittent band at top of third stage, solid band at base of third stage, solid band at top of vertical stripes on first stage

Apollo 13 movie (http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/trailer/10001124/Apollo13TheIMAXExperience-trailer_09.jpg) - intermittent band at top of third stage, solid band at base of third stage. First stage and service module look okay, though.

waynek
2004-Oct-12, 10:45 PM
Okay, so they only got the third stage wrong. I guess that's somewhere between our two original posts. I enjoyed looking at all the Saturn 5 pictures, even if I only partly managed to correct your claim. The site I found indicated that they used a Saturn IB for the test vehicle, so maybe that's how they got tripped up on the movie. They may have used IB photos for the third stage rather than a flight Saturn V. Since the flight vehicles all looked pretty much the same, though, and there's so many pictures of them, it's hard to imagine how they could have messed this up. Maybe they just thought the IB paint looked better?

ToSeek
2004-Oct-13, 03:09 PM
Okay, so they only got the third stage wrong. I guess that's somewhere between our two original posts. I enjoyed looking at all the Saturn 5 pictures, even if I only partly managed to correct your claim. The site I found indicated that they used a Saturn IB for the test vehicle, so maybe that's how they got tripped up on the movie. They may have used IB photos for the third stage rather than a flight Saturn V. Since the flight vehicles all looked pretty much the same, though, and there's so many pictures of them, it's hard to imagine how they could have messed this up. Maybe they just thought the IB paint looked better?

I don't know, but there was definitely a Saturn V test vehicle. (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000614.html) I don't know why they'd use a IB as the basis for anything.

Russ
2004-Oct-16, 04:07 PM
My nit picks:

1) Jim Lovel is/was not as good looking as Tom Hanks.
2) Marilyn Lovel is/was NOWHERE NEAR as pretty as Kathleen Quinlan. But you won't find me complaining about that. :wink: :D

Daryl71
2004-Oct-16, 04:52 PM
1) Jim Lovel is/was not as good looking as Tom Hanks.

The funny thing is, Kevin Costner was originally slated to play Jim Lovell, who, at least in 1994, was almost a dead ringer for Lovell....

Glom
2004-Oct-16, 06:17 PM
My nit picks:

1) Jim Lovel is/was not as good looking as Tom Hanks.
2) Marilyn Lovel is/was NOWHERE NEAR as pretty as Kathleen Quinlan. But you won't find me complaining about that. :wink: :D

That's your contribution? To make such shallow comments about a legend?

Russ
2004-Oct-18, 12:01 AM
My nit picks:

1) Jim Lovel is/was not as good looking as Tom Hanks.
2) Marilyn Lovel is/was NOWHERE NEAR as pretty as Kathleen Quinlan. But you won't find me complaining about that. :wink: :D

That's your contribution? To make such shallow comments about a legend?

To quote Ronald Regan: "Now there ya go again...."

There is this new concept called: "Theater of the Absurd Humor" You will note that I engage in it alot. It's only been in use for 2500 to 3000 years so you may not have "glommed" onto it yet. (yes, the pun is intentional and an example)

The point of humor is the fact that, what Jim & Marilyn Lovel look like is totally, completely and "absurdly" irrelevant, both to the movie and this discussion.

Why am I explaining this???? :roll: :-? 8)

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Oct-18, 12:27 AM
My nit picks:

1) Jim Lovel is/was not as good looking as Tom Hanks.
2) Marilyn Lovel is/was NOWHERE NEAR as pretty as Kathleen Quinlan. But you won't find me complaining about that. :wink: :D

That's your contribution? To make such shallow comments about a legend?

To quote Ronald Regan: "Now there ya go again...."

There is this new concept called: "Theater of the Absurd Humor" You will note that I engage in it alot. It's only been in use for 2500 to 3000 years so you may not have "glommed" onto it yet. (yes, the pun is intentional and an example)

The point of humor is the fact that, what Jim & Marilyn Lovel look like is totally, completely and "absurdly" irrelevant, both to the movie and this discussion.

Why am I explaining this???? :roll: :-? 8)

Um ...

'Cause it's Absurd?

mathyou9
2004-Nov-16, 12:11 PM
One that struck me - a raised thumb at arm's length is shown to cover the moon exactly. I remember learning (from my constellations book when I was 13) that one should use one's little finger.

Of course, the raised thumb has a distinctly positive meaning which makes it a better choice than the little finger.
Tom Hanks' thumb should have cast a shadow onto his eye. In the movie, we are shown Hanks' thumb covering the moon as if we were looking through his eyes. Then when the shot cuts to us looking at Hanks, there is no shadow on his eye. The shadow of Hanks' entire hand can actually be seen on and above his shoulder [on the chair back.]

Jason Thompson
2004-Nov-16, 01:06 PM
I could be wrong, but when they are showing the Saturn V inside the assembly building there seems to be a worrying lack of any kind of scaffold supporting it. Since they are showing the stacking of the third stage/interstage onto the completed first/second stage, shouldn't there be a platform around the rocket so the workers can come along and complete the mating (I'm sure I saw such a platform in the quarterly film reports and stacking footage on the Spacecraft Films Saturn V DVD set)? Instead they just leave the third stage sitting on top, apparently loose. I wouldn't like to try lifting off on that!

Wally
2004-Nov-16, 03:43 PM
Instead they just leave the third stage sitting on top, apparently loose. I wouldn't like to try lifting off on that!

Well, as long as you're accelerating, you should be ok! :lol:

Glom
2004-Nov-16, 05:20 PM
Well, as long as you're accelerating, you should be ok! :lol:

Should make POGO interesting.

ToSeek
2004-Nov-16, 06:16 PM
Well, as long as you're accelerating, you should be ok! :lol:

Should make POGO interesting.

And staging even more so.

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Nov-17, 12:57 AM
One that struck me - a raised thumb at arm's length is shown to cover the moon exactly. I remember learning (from my constellations book when I was 13) that one should use one's little finger.

Of course, the raised thumb has a distinctly positive meaning which makes it a better choice than the little finger.
Tom Hanks' thumb should have cast a shadow onto his eye. In the movie, we are shown Hanks' thumb covering the moon as if we were looking through his eyes. Then when the shot cuts to us looking at Hanks, there is no shadow on his eye. The shadow of Hanks' entire hand can actually be seen on and above his shoulder [on the chair back.]

Paul loses, mathyou9 sorta wins...

The little finger at arm's length will cover the moon (actually 2x the moon -- Luna is 1/2 degree wide in the sky, and the little fingertip at arm's length covers 1 degree). But that's on Earth --the closer you get to the moon, the wider it appears...so at the range portrayed in the movie, it may very well have taken a whole thumb (2 degrees) to cover the Moon. Remember the old bit about a full-dress Harley hiding behind a pencil? It will -- but only at ranges of 100 yards or more...

Perspective and distance are interrelated...

AGN Fuel
2004-Nov-17, 04:58 AM
One that struck me - a raised thumb at arm's length is shown to cover the moon exactly. I remember learning (from my constellations book when I was 13) that one should use one's little finger.

Of course, the raised thumb has a distinctly positive meaning which makes it a better choice than the little finger.
Tom Hanks' thumb should have cast a shadow onto his eye. In the movie, we are shown Hanks' thumb covering the moon as if we were looking through his eyes. Then when the shot cuts to us looking at Hanks, there is no shadow on his eye. The shadow of Hanks' entire hand can actually be seen on and above his shoulder [on the chair back.]

Paul loses, mathyou9 sorta wins...

The little finger at arm's length will cover the moon (actually 2x the moon -- Luna is 1/2 degree wide in the sky, and the little fingertip at arm's length covers 1 degree). But that's on Earth --the closer you get to the moon, the wider it appears...so at the range portrayed in the movie, it may very well have taken a whole thumb (2 degrees) to cover the Moon. Remember the old bit about a full-dress Harley hiding behind a pencil? It will -- but only at ranges of 100 yards or more...

Perspective and distance are interrelated...

Umm - I think the scene that Paul & mathyou9 are describing is the one where Hanks is lying on the chair in his backyard after the A-11 EVA party.
As such, his little finger would have been adequate.

However, he was shown as having consumed a fair old amount of bubbly, so maybe he simply lacked the dexterity to employ his pinkie!!

Jason Thompson
2004-Nov-17, 08:19 AM
The little finger at arm's length will cover the moon (actually 2x the moon -- Luna is 1/2 degree wide in the sky, and the little fingertip at arm's length covers 1 degree). But that's on Earth --the closer you get to the moon, the wider it appears...so at the range portrayed in the movie, it may very well have taken a whole thumb (2 degrees) to cover the Moon.

The scene in question occurs right at the start of the movie, when Lovell is on his garden lounger after the Apollo 11 EVA. He is on Earth when he uses his thumb to obscure the Moon, therefore the nitpick applies.

He uses his thumb to obscure the Earth while he is in space in lunar orbit, though.

jt-3d
2004-Nov-18, 03:34 AM
I watched it today and Hanks is lit from his right front, by what I don't know since it's his backyard. Inconsiderate neighbors I guess. I don't think the amount of light from the moon would wash out the lighting from his side so I don't think there'd be a shadow from his thumb. Who knows though.

kucharek
2004-Nov-18, 07:05 AM
The basic problem with this scene is, that the moon was already set in Houston at the time that scene would have happened. :D

Sir-Talen
2004-Dec-06, 11:16 AM
Maybe Ron Howard will release a special "Extended Director's Edition" like Peter Jackson did with the first two LOTRs. A special 7 hour edition.

:

They did that. It was called "From the Earth to the Moon". :)

Sticks
2008-Mar-17, 08:48 AM
Bump as Phil has mentioned this thread in his blog (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/16/bad-bad-movie-physics/)

I am due to be using clips from this movie in April in a sermon I hope to give at church. (Discussed here) (http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/70375-lessons-apollo-13-a.html)

From my research

Ken Mattingly is shown too near the launch site for safety had the Saturn V rocket blown up on the pad.

Ken Mattingly is tee-total and did not go on a drinking spree

Ken was in mission control all the time

Gene Kranze did not say "Faliure is not an option"


One nice touch, is that the person playing the captain of the USS IWO JIMA that picked up the Apollo 13 capsul in the film was the real life Jim Lovell. :D

Noclevername
2008-Mar-17, 10:58 AM
For all the minor nitpicks, this film is still far closer to realistic than most Hollywoodizations.

Jason Thompson
2008-Mar-17, 12:06 PM
Ken Mattingly is shown too near the launch site for safety had the Saturn V rocket blown up on the pad.

Never mind blowing up on the pad, he is portrayed as too close from an acoustic point of view. Those 5 F-1 engines make the second loudest noise ever created by man-made machinery. He'd likely have been deafened from where he was standing.

Another is the argument between the crew and the whole subplot of the antagonism between Haise and Swigert. In reality, though no-one was really happy with the switch, no-one doubted Swigert's ability, and no-one even considered the accident might possibly have been his fault as Haise implies in the argument scene.

Jason Thompson
2008-Mar-17, 12:08 PM
For all the minor nitpicks, this film is still far closer to realistic than most Hollywoodizations.

Agreed, and it captures emotion excellently too. I've seen it many times, and certain scenes still have an emotional impact on me. I still well up at the 'was it the door?' moment, and still feel like punching the air when they finally see the Odyssey on the main parachutes after the extended blackout. And the whole scene of launch day is utterly stunning.

NorthGuy
2008-Mar-17, 12:31 PM
Gene Kranze did not say "Faliure is not an option"

Except for the title of his book. I'll have to go back over the book to find out when he first uses this phrase. But since he made it the title, he must have said it at some crucial time during his career.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Mar-17, 01:03 PM
The funny thing is, Kevin Costner was originally slated to play Jim Lovell, who, at least in 1994, was almost a dead ringer for Lovell....
Naturally Jim Lovell was a dead ringer for Jim Lovell, but why Costner?

I wonder why this one wasn't picked to pieces, it's a wonderfully bad example for the grammarians:)

Paul Beardsley
2008-Mar-17, 01:12 PM
Naturally Jim Lovell was a dead ringer for Jim Lovell, but why Costner?

I wonder why this one wasn't picked to pieces, it's a wonderfully bad example for the grammarians:)

Hang on...

Kevin Costner was the subject of Daryl's sentence, whereas Jim Lovell was the object. "Who" refers to the subject, "whom" to the object.

Gillian! We need you!

SeanF
2008-Mar-17, 02:16 PM
Hang on...

Kevin Costner was the subject of Daryl's sentence, whereas Jim Lovell was the object. "Who" refers to the subject, "whom" to the object.

Gillian! We need you!
"Who", in that sentence, is the subject of the verb "was" (in "was almost a dead ringer").

Henrik's correct that the sentence, the way it is written, would be referring to Lovell as being a dead ringer for Lovell. There's a name for this type of grammatical error - "misplaced modifier" is coming to mind, but I don't think it's right. :think:

Sticks
2008-Mar-17, 02:23 PM
Nit picking of nit picks that have been nit picked :eh:

Pass the ibuprofen

Gillianren
2008-Mar-17, 06:31 PM
"Who", in that sentence, is the subject of the verb "was" (in "was almost a dead ringer").

Henrik's correct that the sentence, the way it is written, would be referring to Lovell as being a dead ringer for Lovell. There's a name for this type of grammatical error - "misplaced modifier" is coming to mind, but I don't think it's right. :think:

Dang it, can't a girl get some sleep without the Grammar Signal flashing?

In that sentence, "who" obviously refers to Jim Lovell. Quite right. Further, Sean, take a "correct grammatical term" prize. It is indeed a misplaced modifier. "Who, at least in 1994, was almost a dead ringer for Lovell" is intended to modify something else; ergo, modifier. It is intended to modify "Kevin Costner" (I don't care how much he resembled anybody; I can't take Kevin Costner--and Tom Hanks can act circles 'round him). However, since it is placed directly after "Jim Lovell," that is the phrase it modifies. Ergo, the sentence is wrong.

As to who/whom . . . the only rule of that I reliably remember well enough to explain it to anyone else is that "whom" always falls after a preposition. "To whom," for example. Putting it in the aforementioned sentence wouldn't change to whom (see?) the sentence referred. It just would've made the sentence even more wrong.

Noclevername
2008-Mar-17, 06:53 PM
Dang it, can't a girl get some sleep without the Grammar Signal flashing?

Quickly, Robin, to the GrammarCave! :lol:

Infinity Watcher
2008-Mar-17, 10:47 PM
Quickly, Robin, to the GrammarCave! :lol:

I'm just wondering what the grammarmobile looks like, I like the idea of a grammarbelt though, not sure what you'd find in it, correction fluid presumably, not sure what else.

Donnie B.
2008-Mar-17, 11:07 PM
I'm just wondering what the grammarmobile looks like, I like the idea of a grammarbelt though, not sure what you'd find in it, correction fluid presumably, not sure what else.
Naturally, you'd find whatever was needed to handle this episode's grammar crisis.

I know this because, in my other identity, I'm known as Alfred B.

KaiYeves
2008-Mar-18, 12:35 AM
Does that thing I said about the frogmen doing "thumbs up" instead of "okay" in that other thread count? Because in diver school, they said to never use "thumbs up" in your everyday life or you might do it underwater, where it means something completely different.

Gillianren
2008-Mar-18, 12:38 AM
I'm just wondering what the grammarmobile looks like, I like the idea of a grammarbelt though, not sure what you'd find in it, correction fluid presumably, not sure what else.

Why, red pens and blue pencils, of course!

I don't possess a grammarmobile yet, but I'm working on it. And, yes, I will have a label made saying just that.

Moose
2008-Mar-18, 01:14 AM
Except for the title of his book. I'll have to go back over the book to find out when he first uses this phrase. But since he made it the title, he must have said it at some crucial time during his career.

The title is his backhanded reference to how often it's been mis-attributed to him. He never said it.

That said, a very brief search didn't turn it up. I have at least four candidates (in terms of a similarly brief memory search) for where this was explained: Kranz's book, Kraft's book, Moondust, or Apollo 13's commentary track with Jim Lovell. I suspect it's the latter.

Donnie B.
2008-Mar-18, 01:37 AM
I can't remember where either, but I've heard the same thing. Basically, Kranz didn't say it because it wasn't necessary to say anything like that. Everybody in the MOCR and backrooms would have taken that attitude as a given.

Jason Thompson
2008-Mar-18, 10:19 AM
Except for the title of his book. I'll have to go back over the book to find out when he first uses this phrase. But since he made it the title, he must have said it at some crucial time during his career.

Which sounds fine until you realise that his book was published several years after the movie was made.

This allows the possibility that the scriptwriters wrote it because it sounded good, it stuck in the memory, and Kranz liked it enough to use it for his own book.

Moose
2008-Mar-18, 01:04 PM
This allows the possibility that the scriptwriters wrote it because it sounded good, it stuck in the memory, and Kranz liked it enough to use it for his own book.

*snaps fingers* You know, it may well have been talked about on the movie commentary tracks. Either Jim Lovell's or Ron Howard's. I'm thinking it may have been Howard's track.

I'll figure this out yet.

NorthGuy
2008-Mar-19, 12:31 PM
Which sounds fine until you realise that his book was published several years after the movie was made.

This allows the possibility that the scriptwriters wrote it because it sounded good, it stuck in the memory, and Kranz liked it enough to use it for his own book.

Yes, as far as I can see he only uses the phrase in the first chapter of his book to descrbe his work in retrospect. So maybe he did adopt it from the movie. Life immitating art.