Ronald D Moore talks about bringing 'For All Mankind' to Apple TV+

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43

    lkrupp said:
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    The danger here is that for the majority of people who will watch this piece of complete fiction the  actual events are just pages in a history book. To this day the conspiracy theories thrive claiming the moon landing never happened, that it was all filmed on a movie stage, and that the Russians were in on it. Will this movie be taken as a documentary rather than fiction? I was 7 years old when Sputnik was launched in 1957. I was 19 years old when Apollo 11 lifted off Pad 39A. I lived through it all, glued to my television set. I am not interested in this abomination.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/

    Seems there is no shortage of people who will happily trample all over historical fact to promote a particular agenda. Happily, "For All Mankind" appears to be emphasising the "What If...?" angle rather than suggesting that the portrayal represents reality. I was really impressed by the Battlestar Galactica reboot, so I'll be watching FAM to see if it brings the same level of entertainment.
    Imagine refusing to watch Battlestar Galactica because of the "mitochondrial Eve" ending rewriting the history of the origin of the entire human race! GeorgeBMac's head would explode.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    firelock said:
    This is actually about the only show in Apple’s lineup that I have any interest in seeing. The arguments stated above about it being an “abomination,” sight unseen, seem outlandish.
    I'd have to agree, though I also agree with the other geezers here, in that having grown up with the space race, and watching the first moon walk in 1969 at age 18, I'm concerned that younger viewers will have more familiarity with this fiction than with the history — despite the flurry of movies that came out last July around the time of the 50th anniversary. Maybe I'll just watch "October Sky" again instead. ;-)
    firelockGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 23 of 43

    How many people did Tarantino piss off when he got Hitler gunned down with hundreds of bullets?

    Alternative history as fiction is just another genre. I don't understand people getting their panties in a bunch because of the plot.

    I can understand people not liking the general storyline and giving it a pass, but linking it to a fear that history will be re-written and that the "young 'uns" will think this is real history is just misplaced jingoism and xenophobia.


    FWIW, the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was one of the most enjoyable pieces of cinema I have seen in a long, long time.

    firelocktmay
  • Reply 24 of 43
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,447member
    sunman42 said:
    firelock said:
    This is actually about the only show in Apple’s lineup that I have any interest in seeing. The arguments stated above about it being an “abomination,” sight unseen, seem outlandish.
    I'd have to agree, though I also agree with the other geezers here, in that having grown up with the space race, and watching the first moon walk in 1969 at age 18, I'm concerned that younger viewers will have more familiarity with this fiction than with the history — despite the flurry of movies that came out last July around the time of the 50th anniversary. Maybe I'll just watch "October Sky" again instead. ;-)
    You give the younger viewers too little credit. This is just pearl-clutching gatekeeping.
    firelocktmayzhiro
  • Reply 25 of 43
    sunman42 said:
    firelock said:
    This is actually about the only show in Apple’s lineup that I have any interest in seeing. The arguments stated above about it being an “abomination,” sight unseen, seem outlandish.
    I'd have to agree, though I also agree with the other geezers here, in that having grown up with the space race, and watching the first moon walk in 1969 at age 18, I'm concerned that younger viewers will have more familiarity with this fiction than with the history — despite the flurry of movies that came out last July around the time of the 50th anniversary. Maybe I'll just watch "October Sky" again instead. ;-)
    You give the younger viewers too little credit. This is just pearl-clutching gatekeeping.
    That and why would anyone think older viewers are any better. Most people are ignorant of history and even alternate history fiction sparks viewer interest in the era.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 26 of 43
    My take would be that if a show like this re-awakens interest in scientific exploration like we grew up with in the 70s, that would be a net good. It's going to be transparently obviously "not real events," so I'm don't think a generation will grow up misinformed by this. Rather, it sounds like they might grow up more inspired by this road not taken. 
    tmayfirelockpscooter63fastasleep
  • Reply 27 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    13485 said:
    lkrupp said:
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    The danger here is that for the majority of people who will watch this piece of complete fiction the  actual events are just pages in a history book. To this day the conspiracy theories thrive claiming the moon landing never happened, that it was all filmed on a movie stage, and that the Russians were in on it. Will this movie be taken as a documentary rather than fiction? I was 7 years old when Sputnik was launched in 1957. I was 19 years old when Apollo 11 lifted off Pad 39A. I lived through it all, glued to my television set. I am not interested in this abomination.
    I'm of a similar experience as both of you, but I'll watch and debate the merits on what shows up on the screen. There has always been alternate history / scifi and little of it I found abominable--some dull, some preposterous, some flawed, some quite good.  

    On the other hand, I find little things such as inaccurate haircuts in historical set pieces very off-putting, or using out-of-period) dialog, or characters behaving in ways that wouldn't have been tolerated in that time (...or maybe that's the Catholic school in me leaking out).

    Anyhow, hate that stuff, and it's not that hard to do it right.
    I understand what you mean by keeping things historically accurate.  But I suspect its harder than it looks.  I remember a piece about the Steve Jobs movie where they had to go back and re-shoot the garage scene(s) because they found a Dust Buster hanging on the wall -- and Dust Busters didn't exist at that time.
    Doubtful. Would've been quicker, easier, and cheaper just to edit it out in post than reshoot.

    For myself, I won't watch the Apple version of this because I don't want to start playing with what was such a marvelous, wonderous achievement on so many different levels:  scientific, engineering, technical and workmanship, governmental, industrial as well as societal.  It's like re-writing the founding and beginnings of Apple.  Nothing can match the reality -- only tear it down.
    Funny you should mention the Steve Jobs movie then, since that was historical fiction as well.
    I think that was from the director of the movie -- or somebody else closely associated with it.  I forget, and it's not worth researching.

    As for the movie, one can contest specific facts, but the Jobs movie that contained the garage scenes was hardly fiction.  (You may be talking about the latter one titled Steve Jobs.  Yeh, that was mostly just spin.)
  • Reply 28 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sunman42 said:
    firelock said:
    This is actually about the only show in Apple’s lineup that I have any interest in seeing. The arguments stated above about it being an “abomination,” sight unseen, seem outlandish.
    I'd have to agree, though I also agree with the other geezers here, in that having grown up with the space race, and watching the first moon walk in 1969 at age 18, I'm concerned that younger viewers will have more familiarity with this fiction than with the history — despite the flurry of movies that came out last July around the time of the 50th anniversary. Maybe I'll just watch "October Sky" again instead. ;-)
    I'll watch Apollo 13.   No, they didn't quite make it onto the moon.   But it nevertheless illustrated the team work, technology, boot strap innovation, commitment, danger and how it united the country and the world in a shared moment.  

    Two memorable lines sum it up:
    "Houston, we have a problem"  (while his space ship was coming apart!)
    "Failure is not an option"
  • Reply 29 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member

    How many people did Tarantino piss off when he got Hitler gunned down with hundreds of bullets?

    Alternative history as fiction is just another genre. I don't understand people getting their panties in a bunch because of the plot.

    I can understand people not liking the general storyline and giving it a pass, but linking it to a fear that history will be re-written and that the "young 'uns" will think this is real history is just misplaced jingoism and xenophobia.


    FWIW, the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was one of the most enjoyable pieces of cinema I have seen in a long, long time.

    The best way to "rewrite" history is simply to take the truth and give it a minor little twist and spin.   It's the foundation of most propaganda.
    But, that is really only part of the problem:   By spinning the story to make a better story, they denigrate one of the shining moments of this country and humankind.
  • Reply 30 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    zhiro said:
    My take would be that if a show like this re-awakens interest in scientific exploration like we grew up with in the 70s, that would be a net good. It's going to be transparently obviously "not real events," so I'm don't think a generation will grow up misinformed by this. Rather, it sounds like they might grow up more inspired by this road not taken. 
    I would think that they would be more inspired by the magnificent, awe-inspiring, mind boggling reality than any fairy tale.
  • Reply 31 of 43
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
  • Reply 32 of 43
    Found this interesting bit of information on the planned but never achieved Soviet lunar landing program:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
  • Reply 33 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Like most propaganda -- take a fact, isolate it and spin it -- ignore all other facts and factors -- all to support an agenda or ideology or point that is fundamentally flawed or untrue.

    But, if you prefer to believe that version, that is your right.
    edited October 2019 13485
  • Reply 34 of 43
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.

    hucom2000 said:
    Might make for good fiction though...

    Guys it IS a fiction!! Did you guys think it was a documentary??


    Thrashman said:
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    Absolutely.  
    Rewriting history and putting Oprah on the moon - just to depressing.

    Wrong show.

    tmay said:

    Are you people serious? You really can’t stand the idea of women getting airtime in exciting drama, can you? Damn man, that is some sorry shit. 

    It's not about a woman getting airtime. It's about an entertainer being presented as someone important in history. We already have too much emphasis on celebrity at the expense of science in our culture, with more people interested in the Kardasians than Jane Goodall.
    The original comment "rewriting history and putting Oprah on the Moon", is just a throwaway, misogynist one, since Oprah has absolutely nothing to do with "For All Mankind". 

    Mentioning Oprah is misogynistic now? Wow what a snowflake. Why do you guys feel the need to automatically defend all women on here? This is like a feminist board lol. Everything is sexist and offensive. It was just a dumb comment is all.

    Here's an equally dumb comment:

    "Not interested. And putting Tim Cook on the moon-just to depressing."

    And since it mentions a male, it isn't sexist....
  • Reply 35 of 43
    1348513485 Posts: 360member
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Maybe you just had to be there. Commercially, strategically, scientifically, and even with its palpable boost to human optimism worn thin by 25 years of Cold War, the entire effort was on point and worth every cent. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will just wonder why it took so long in between benchmarks.

    As far as Armstrong "flubbing" his line, big deal. It stood all by itself and everyone on the planet knew what he meant. 

    Of course the Soviets had a moon landing plan, they just had no money and no hope of doing it. LEO flights were their best shots, and historically quite important to our knowledge. 

    It was "political" when there are photo ops and speeches and parades; it's strategic when you're both pointing ICBMs at each other, and there are hot and proxy wars going on from Indochina to Nicaragua to Czechoslovakia. There's a big difference.


    fastasleep
  • Reply 36 of 43
    13485 said:
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Maybe you just had to be there. Commercially, strategically, scientifically, and even with its palpable boost to human optimism worn thin by 25 years of Cold War, the entire effort was on point and worth every cent. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will just wonder why it took so long in between benchmarks.

    As far as Armstrong "flubbing" his line, big deal. It stood all by itself and everyone on the planet knew what he meant. 

    Of course the Soviets had a moon landing plan, they just had no money and no hope of doing it. LEO flights were their best shots, and historically quite important to our knowledge. 

    It was "political" when there are photo ops and speeches and parades; it's strategic when you're both pointing ICBMs at each other, and there are hot and proxy wars going on from Indochina to Nicaragua to Czechoslovakia. There's a big difference.


    I was alive when it happened. It was a phony competition between the countries and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Fact. The “side benefits” of the expenditures were irrelevant because (as the saying goes) “necessity is the mother of invention”. Market forces are more powerful than the waste and inefficiency of Federal programs with no real purpose other than to intimidate through spending the political opposition.
    edited October 2019
  • Reply 37 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    13485 said:
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Maybe you just had to be there. Commercially, strategically, scientifically, and even with its palpable boost to human optimism worn thin by 25 years of Cold War, the entire effort was on point and worth every cent. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will just wonder why it took so long in between benchmarks.

    As far as Armstrong "flubbing" his line, big deal. It stood all by itself and everyone on the planet knew what he meant. 

    Of course the Soviets had a moon landing plan, they just had no money and no hope of doing it. LEO flights were their best shots, and historically quite important to our knowledge. 

    It was "political" when there are photo ops and speeches and parades; it's strategic when you're both pointing ICBMs at each other, and there are hot and proxy wars going on from Indochina to Nicaragua to Czechoslovakia. There's a big difference.


    I was alive when it happened. It was a phony competition between the countries and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Fact. The “side benefits” of the expenditures were irrelevant because (as the saying goes) “necessity is the mother of invention”. Market forces are more powerful than the waste and inefficiency of Federal programs with no real purpose other than to intimidate through spending the political opposition.
    Oh, I see.   You already re-wrote the story based on modern day Libertarian cynicism.   Of the two re-writes, I prefer Apple's.   But the best is no re-write.  I'll stick to reality.
    edited October 2019
  • Reply 38 of 43
    13485 said:
    lkrupp said:
    I for one have no desire or interest in this -- none, zero.
    I was in my teenage years during NASA's explosive development.  And, it wasn't just about science and technology but teamwork:  They not only pulled together one of the greatest scientific teams ever in the history of the world but united the nation in shared enthusiasm as well as the rest of the world -- because their stated goal was to advance scientific discovery for all of mankind.  And they did just that.

    They did the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, it was prompted by competition with the Russians -- but the methods, goals and objectives were not nationalistic.  They were global:   It culminated and was summarized in just a few short words:  "One step for man...."

    I don't think any fiction or fantasy can every top that reality and, for me, kind of sacrilegious to try.
    The danger here is that for the majority of people who will watch this piece of complete fiction the  actual events are just pages in a history book. To this day the conspiracy theories thrive claiming the moon landing never happened, that it was all filmed on a movie stage, and that the Russians were in on it. Will this movie be taken as a documentary rather than fiction? I was 7 years old when Sputnik was launched in 1957. I was 19 years old when Apollo 11 lifted off Pad 39A. I lived through it all, glued to my television set. I am not interested in this abomination.
    I'm of a similar experience as both of you, but I'll watch and debate the merits on what shows up on the screen. There has always been alternate history / scifi and little of it I found abominable--some dull, some preposterous, some flawed, some quite good.  

    On the other hand, I find little things such as inaccurate haircuts in historical set pieces very off-putting, or using out-of-period) dialog, or characters behaving in ways that wouldn't have been tolerated in that time (...or maybe that's the Catholic school in me leaking out).

    Anyhow, hate that stuff, and it's not that hard to do it right.
    I understand what you mean by keeping things historically accurate.  But I suspect its harder than it looks.  I remember a piece about the Steve Jobs movie where they had to go back and re-shoot the garage scene(s) because they found a Dust Buster hanging on the wall -- and Dust Busters didn't exist at that time.
    Doubtful. Would've been quicker, easier, and cheaper just to edit it out in post than reshoot.

    For myself, I won't watch the Apple version of this because I don't want to start playing with what was such a marvelous, wonderous achievement on so many different levels:  scientific, engineering, technical and workmanship, governmental, industrial as well as societal.  It's like re-writing the founding and beginnings of Apple.  Nothing can match the reality -- only tear it down.
    Funny you should mention the Steve Jobs movie then, since that was historical fiction as well.
    I think that was from the director of the movie -- or somebody else closely associated with it.  I forget, and it's not worth researching.

    As for the movie, one can contest specific facts, but the Jobs movie that contained the garage scenes was hardly fiction.  (You may be talking about the latter one titled Steve Jobs.  Yeh, that was mostly just spin.)
    Oh, the Ashton Kutcher movie? Yeah, they probably just re-shot it then, that thing was on a shoestring budget. Danny Boyle's film would've had the money to fix it in post. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 39 of 43

    Mentioning Oprah is misogynistic now? Wow what a snowflake. Why do you guys feel the need to automatically defend all women on here? This is like a feminist board lol. Everything is sexist and offensive. It was just a dumb comment is all.

    Here's an equally dumb comment:

    "Not interested. And putting Tim Cook on the moon-just to depressing."

    And since it mentions a male, it isn't sexist....
    They've made at least one other sexist comment here that I can recall off hand, so yeah — they're calling it like they see it, though they definitely have something against Oprah specifically based on other comments.

    "Feminist board" or a board that's rampant with sexist, bigoted comments and a few people willing to stand up to them?
  • Reply 40 of 43
    13485 said:
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Maybe you just had to be there. Commercially, strategically, scientifically, and even with its palpable boost to human optimism worn thin by 25 years of Cold War, the entire effort was on point and worth every cent. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will just wonder why it took so long in between benchmarks.

    As far as Armstrong "flubbing" his line, big deal. It stood all by itself and everyone on the planet knew what he meant. 

    Of course the Soviets had a moon landing plan, they just had no money and no hope of doing it. LEO flights were their best shots, and historically quite important to our knowledge. 

    It was "political" when there are photo ops and speeches and parades; it's strategic when you're both pointing ICBMs at each other, and there are hot and proxy wars going on from Indochina to Nicaragua to Czechoslovakia. There's a big difference.


    I was alive when it happened. It was a phony competition between the countries and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Fact. The “side benefits” of the expenditures were irrelevant because (as the saying goes) “necessity is the mother of invention”. Market forces are more powerful than the waste and inefficiency of Federal programs with no real purpose other than to intimidate through spending the political opposition.
    Oh, I see.   You already re-wrote the story based on modern day Libertarian cynicism.   Of the two re-writes, I prefer Apple's.   But the best is no re-write.  I'll stick to reality.
    I guess you’re just trolling because you’re a fan of big government?
Sign In or Register to comment.