← Back to context

Comment by buckle8017

3 days ago

That movie is race baiting garbage.

Skip to the Historical Accuracy section of that page.

Thanks for pointing out this section, but "race baiting garbage" is a strong term, no?

There were historical inaccuracies, some of which I expected like timeline issues and things like that, as well some things which were actually true that I did not expect (John Glenn asking for the calculations personally). In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / science and tell a compelling story about people who helped us during a time before the Civil Rights Act. To call it "race baiting garbage" is overly dismissive and I think exposes an alarming personal bias.

  • > but "race baiting garbage" is a strong term, no?

    No. Read the Historical Accuracy section. The movie made up a bunch of pointless racial conflict that literally didn't happen.

  • > In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / scienc

    No it's not, the movie is virtually entirely about race relations at NASA and lying about what really happened there.

    It's not merely the timeline but the substance, try reading it again. Nobody was every actually banned from bathrooms.

Thank you for pointing out that section. I wasn't aware of those storytelling compromises specifically, and some of them are annoying.

I said "drama" rather than "documentary" because I was sure there were storytelling compromises, but I agree with you that I think some of the compromises this section describes are not OK, when we're talking about real events and real people.

Knowing that the filmmakers made some choices that I think cross the line, I don't know whether I'd enjoy re-watching it, or just find the mistakes irritating to the point that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.

As the section goes on, it discusses some of the challenges (e.g., the need for composite characters), and some of the criticisms and dialogue around the filmmakers' choices.