Ron Howard's 1995 depiction of Apollo 13's perilous moon shot is now streaming on Netflix.

I saw this movie on the night it opened (AMC Kabuki theater in San Francisco thanks for asking), and I don't usually do that sort of thing, so I guess I was "proud" of having gone to see it and its always been an important movie to me. Except people who know more about movies than I do say it's flawed.

What do y'all think of it?

Loved the movie.

The flaws ( http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/24/busin ... lo-13.html ) are inconsequential nit picks.

Loved it, too.

It's one of the stories where you know the end, but the film does a great job in creating tension.

Similar to "The Day of the Jackal" (the old Zinnemann version), or "Dunkirk".


David

Fantastic movie.

My only thing is if I remember correctly, Jim Lovell or someone said there wasn't actually any concern with Jack Swigert's ability to pilot. So I didn't really like that they added those moments of worry.

But that's small potatoes. Fantastic movie. I remember being blown away by the launch sequence. Great shots.

flyingturtle wrote:

Loved it, too.

It's one of the stories where you know the end, but the film does a great job in creating tension.

Similar to "The Day of the Jackal" (the old Zinnemann version), or "Dunkirk".


David

I found Captain Phillips to be that way too.

vikkyvik wrote:

Fantastic movie.

My only thing is if I remember correctly, Jim Lovell or someone said there wasn't actually any concern with Jack Swigert's ability to pilot. So I didn't really like that they added those moments of worry.

But that's small potatoes. Fantastic movie. I remember being blown away by the launch sequence. Great shots.

Correct, also there was no shouting between Lovell, Haise and Swigert in real life and there was no blame placed on Swigert for the accident

IIRC in the DVD special features Ron Howard had to to tell Jim Lovell that he needed that scene because its a movie and they needed the drama. Real astronauts are very level headed so they needed some drama.

One thing to not the actual quote was "Houston we've had a problem here". Not "Houston we have a problem"

I also agree that it is a great movie

I think the big lesson we can all take away is that you should never travel with Tom Hanks...?

Apollo 13
Captain Phillips
Castaway
Sully....

No,, truly though, I love this movie even to this day. I have always had a crush on the Saturn V system and my 6-year-old, who is quite taken with being an astronaut one day runs around the house with models of the Saturn V telling people "This is the stage 1 booster" "this is the service module" "this is the LEM"...... its one of the first movies hes ever sat and watched entirely (that isn't animated)

As everyone is saying, a fantastic film. Jim Lovell was actually in the film right at the end. I think he was the last person I the line up of Navy officers to shake Tom Yanks hand.

Steve

StarAC17 wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

Fantastic movie.

My only thing is if I remember correctly, Jim Lovell or someone said there wasn't actually any concern with Jack Swigert's ability to pilot. So I didn't really like that they added those moments of worry.

But that's small potatoes. Fantastic movie. I remember being blown away by the launch sequence. Great shots.

Correct, also there was no shouting between Lovell, Haise and Swigert in real life and there was no blame placed on Swigert for the accident

IIRC in the DVD special features Ron Howard had to to tell Jim Lovell that he needed that scene because its a movie and they needed the drama. Real astronauts are very level headed so they needed some drama.

One thing to not the actual quote was "Houston we've had a problem here". Not "Houston we have a problem"

I also agree that it is a great movie

Hollywood - the same people who slandered Guss Grissom in The Right Stuff just to add plot tension...

The thing I noticed the other night (I hope Netflix has a spare copy because I'm going to wear theirs out) is that they took off on 4/11/1970, splashed down on 4/17, and then emerged from the capsule... clean-shaven.

Airstud wrote:

The thing I noticed the other night (I hope Netflix has a spare copy because I'm going to wear theirs out) is that they took off on 4/11/1970, splashed down on 4/17, and then emerged from the capsule... clean-shaven.

Nah, the policemen trapped underground - in one of the Batman films - emerge clean-shaven too! The follicles recognize a legitimate emergency, and stop growing hair.


David

moo wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

Fantastic movie.

My only thing is if I remember correctly, Jim Lovell or someone said there wasn't actually any concern with Jack Swigert's ability to pilot. So I didn't really like that they added those moments of worry.

But that's small potatoes. Fantastic movie. I remember being blown away by the launch sequence. Great shots.

Correct, also there was no shouting between Lovell, Haise and Swigert in real life and there was no blame placed on Swigert for the accident

IIRC in the DVD special features Ron Howard had to to tell Jim Lovell that he needed that scene because its a movie and they needed the drama. Real astronauts are very level headed so they needed some drama.

One thing to not the actual quote was "Houston we've had a problem here". Not "Houston we have a problem"

I also agree that it is a great movie

Hollywood - the same people who slandered Guss Grissom in The Right Stuff just to add plot tension...

Well The Right Stuff is better entertainment than history.
But they also had the Yeager character, up to then dismissive of Astronauts, comment that Gus did OK.
The Capsule was eventually raised over 15 years after the film was made.

Apollo 13 manages to both good history and be entertaining, as stated some dramatic scenes were inserted to move the story along and after reading the mission transcripts the writers were somewhat in despair, about how to turn it into a script that rang true to the viewing public. Who simply would not believe no friction of any kind took place.

When they do that correction burn, with the LM Descent engine, on the way back, it's an exciting scene, all about keeping the Earth's terminator in view while the LH oscillates and they struggle to control it.
In reality, a 13 second burn, the conversation amounting to Lovell announcing the firing and 13 secs later, announcing it's done. Engine off. Who would believe that? It's all on record though.

A bit of a cheat when they zipped around the Moon, Lovell did mention enough of the looking, we have things to do, however the Lunar features they mentioned flying over - not all viewable in one slingshot orbit.
And apparently Lovell's daughter was not that upset about The Beatles breaking up.

That's about it, the inventions are that minor, mainly to set the scene, the times it was set, move the narrative along. The main players of the Astronauts back in Houston involved in getting 13 back included of course Ken Mattingly but also the late Ed Mitchell and the more recently sadly departed John Young, to name at least two others.
But again, moving the narrative along, plus him being bumped from 13 made Mattingly a major part of the story anyway.

GDB wrote:

In reality, a 13 second burn, the conversation amounting to Lovell announcing the firing and 13 secs later, announcing it's done. Engine off. Who would believe that? It's all on record though.

Well, not that I know anything about this stuff, but I'd believe it, just off of knowing that NASA astronauts were always the most socks-off-knocking, kick-a__ pilots anyone's ever heard of. (Wasn't that the main selection criterion?)

I also couldn't buy that Lovell could see the lunar surface when they were round the far side; I thought the whole point of the far side of the moon was that it was in shadow.

And I wonder if Marilyn Lovell's wedding ring slid off in the shower in real life, or if she really had that terrible dream on March 23rd.

moo wrote:

Hollywood - the same people who slandered Guss Grissom in The Right Stuff just to add plot tension...

The Right Stuff is very obviously not a historically accurate film. One should certainly not look to big-budget films to find historical accuracy.

That said, I love The Right Stuff. One of my favorite movies.

vikkyvik wrote:

moo wrote:

Hollywood - the same people who slandered Guss Grissom in The Right Stuff just to add plot tension...

The Right Stuff is very obviously not a historically accurate film. One should certainly not look to big-budget films to find historical accuracy.

That said, I love The Right Stuff. One of my favorite movies.

If it covers historical situations, it shouldn't make parts of it up...

Revelation wrote:

Loved the movie.

The flaws are inconsequential nit picks.

A little more than just nitpicks though:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs

https://www.moviemistakes.com/film75/pageall

I am always amazed how many mistakes they make in movies that cost so much money.
Mainly simple things, that could have been avoided easily.

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Loved the movie.

The flaws are inconsequential nit picks.

A little more than just nitpicks though:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs

https://www.moviemistakes.com/film75/pageall

I am always amazed how many mistakes they make in movies that cost so much money.
Mainly simple things, that could have been avoided easily.

No Tax On Rotax

A less technical nitpick that I have:

Kevin Bacon is in the shower with a girl, buck nekkid obviously, when the phone rings. Why, then, does he wrap a towel around his waist when he steps out? :

Revelation wrote:

Loved the movie.

The flaws ( http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/24/busin ... lo-13.html ) are inconsequential nit picks.

Agreed.

Airstud wrote:

I am always amazed how many mistakes they make in movies that cost so much money.
Mainly simple things, that could have been avoided easily.

They don't really detract from the movie. And, too me, they are only "avoided easily" in hindsight when all the "experts" come out of the woodwork to nitpick every little thing.

Did it detract from the movie that they talk about a Mr. Coffee machine? Or, any of the other goofs, individually, or collectively? It's a movie.

How many did you notice?

Airstud wrote:

Kevin Bacon is in the shower with a girl, buck nekkid obviously, when the phone rings. Why, then, does he wrap a towel around his waist when he steps out? :

Not really a goof, really. I think that's just simple American modesty or prudity.

fr8mech wrote:

Airstud wrote:

I am always amazed how many mistakes they make in movies that cost so much money.
Mainly simple things, that could have been avoided easily.

They don't really detract from the movie. And, too me, they are only "avoided easily" in hindsight when all the "experts" come out of the woodwork to nitpick every little thing.

Did it detract from the movie that they talk about a Mr. Coffee machine? Or, any of the other goofs, individually, or collectively? It's a movie.

How many did you notice?

Er...it's not me who wrote that, that you've quoted!!!

Airstud wrote:

Er...it's not me who wrote that, that you've quoted!!!

Apologies. The quoting function in this version of the forum really sucks and requires some vigilance to ensure the right person is attributed to a particular bit of text.

fr8mech wrote:

They don't really detract from the movie. And, too me, they are only "avoided easily" in hindsight when all the "experts" come out of the woodwork to nitpick every little thing.

Did it detract from the movie that they talk about a Mr. Coffee machine? Or, any of the other goofs, individually, or collectively? It's a movie.

I noticed you cherrypicked the coffee machine, however, a lot more factual errors about space and technology were mentioned in that same article as well.
When you do a movie on space flight, you might as well get the facts right.
I am not whacking the movie, I am just pointing out that there were more errors than was made to believe earlier in this thread.

The argument "it`s a movie" only goes so far! By that logic, why hide the cameramen at all? Why dress up in uniforms? It`s all fake anyway, right?
The makers go through a lot of trouble to give us the most realistic display of a storyline and if they wouldn't the movie would be less enjoyable; right?

I would think, but that may be very naive; that they would have these details checked by outsiders. Factual as well as silly stuff like moving cups on a table in between shots or the shadow of a camera boom etc etc.
But apparently, they don`t! And that´s interesting, considering the budget of these movies.

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

I would think, but that may be very naive; that they would have these details checked by outsiders

Again, the truth, did you notice any of those goofs, or are you relying on others? You know, even when I notice a goof, which I do in movies featuring aircraft, firearms or fire departments, it doesn't detract from the movie at all...because it is a movie and I don't expect Hollywood to have all the expertise to catch it all. Or, even if the expertise is there, sometimes accuracy is sacrificed on the altar of expediency or entertainment.

notaxonrotax wrote:

silly stuff like moving cups on a table in between shots or the shadow of a camera boom

Yeah, that can be annoying, but again, if the overall movie is good, it's no big deal.

Airstud wrote:

GDB wrote:

In reality, a 13 second burn, the conversation amounting to Lovell announcing the firing and 13 secs later, announcing it's done. Engine off. Who would believe that? It's all on record though.

Well, not that I know anything about this stuff, but I'd believe it, just off of knowing that NASA astronauts were always the most socks-off-knocking, kick-a__ pilots anyone's ever heard of. (Wasn't that the main selection criterion?)

I also couldn't buy that Lovell could see the lunar surface when they were round the far side; I thought the whole point of the far side of the moon was that it was in shadow.

And I wonder if Marilyn Lovell's wedding ring slid off in the shower in real life, or if she really had that terrible dream on March 23rd.

Mrs Lovell did indeed lose her wedding ring in a shower the day before the flight.
She was a bit apprehensive about it being Apollo 13 but that is a device to show how Jim had promised her that this 4th flight of his, would be his last. In 1970 Lovell had more time in space than any other, had been to the Moon on Apollo 8 (with no LM with it's engine attached). The poor woman had been through enough and Jim understood this, (theirs was one of only a few marriages that survived the Apollo era).

NASA had already trained/developed procedures for using the LM as a lifeboat, usually they simulated air contamination in the Command Module.
In a similar vein, to fix this they had considered using materials on board, included the scrubbers and hoses to vent the contaminated module and to power down the CSM until they were in a position to power it up and re-enter.
They had not anticipated an explosion in the Service Module however and several days of it effectively being frozen before power up.

So they had some training and procedures to draw on as a basis to help Apollo 13.

Gene Krantz never yelled at his staff, or lost his temper in any way.
Again, showing that fact just would not ring true to most of the audience, assuming they were still awake.

This film was made 25 years after the event, much of the audience would not clearly remember it or been around at all.
The film makers had to try to keep it real but at the same time highlight the massive peril the crew were in.
Tom Hanks is a space nut, the main Astronaut consultant for the film, Dave Scott, (Gemini 8, Apollo 9, Apollo 15), remarked how Hanks sometimes knew more about some of the history than he remembered!

fr8mech wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

I would think, but that may be very naive; that they would have these details checked by outsiders

Again, the truth, did you notice any of those goofs, or are you relying on others? You know, even when I notice a goof, which I do in movies featuring aircraft, firearms or fire departments, it doesn't detract from the movie at all...because it is a movie and I don't expect Hollywood to have all the expertise to catch it all. Or, even if the expertise is there, sometimes accuracy is sacrificed on the altar of expediency or entertainment.

notaxonrotax wrote:

silly stuff like moving cups on a table in between shots or the shadow of a camera boom

Yeah, that can be annoying, but again, if the overall movie is good, it's no big deal.

Truth? No!
But I have only seen this movie while VERY distracted doing other things.
In this case, this is hardly fair.
My point is in general with movies, though. I guess you got that, right?

I know people who can`t watch old James Bond movies due to the "bad" special effects of way back when.
The "Shark" in "License to Kill is an example.
That stuff doesn´t bother me, that is what they had at that time.

But some goofs I see are irritating sometimes, just sloppy stuff.
And that surprises me.....I would have audience checking every detail before finalizing.
But hey, we digress.

Apollo 13 is a good movie.
Full stop.

No Tax On Rotax

fr8mech wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

I would think, but that may be very naive; that they would have these details checked by outsiders

Again, the truth, did you notice any of those goofs, or are you relying on others? You know, even when I notice a goof, which I do in movies featuring aircraft, firearms or fire departments, it doesn't detract from the movie at all...because it is a movie and I don't expect Hollywood to have all the expertise to catch it all. Or, even if the expertise is there, sometimes accuracy is sacrificed on the altar of expediency or entertainment.

notaxonrotax wrote:

silly stuff like moving cups on a table in between shots or the shadow of a camera boom

Yeah, that can be annoying, but again, if the overall movie is good, it's no big deal.

Agree. After reading the list of goofs I remember being aware of the fact that the carrier was a modern one (had the close-in weapons system that didn't exist in the Apollo era) but the fact only registered briefly.

Part of enjoying a movie is deciding you won't let little flaws bother you.

notaxonrotax wrote:

The makers go through a lot of trouble to give us the most realistic display of a storyline

Not really. They go through a lot of trouble to keep the audience immersed in the story and the experience, not to give the most realistic display.

That's a key difference. Why waste more money on little details that, for the vast majority of people, won't make a difference to their enjoyment of the movie?

vikkyvik wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

The makers go through a lot of trouble to give us the most realistic display of a storyline

Not really. They go through a lot of trouble to keep the audience immersed in the story and the experience, not to give the most realistic display.

That's a key difference. Why waste more money on little details that, for the vast majority of people, won't make a difference to their enjoyment of the movie?

You are probably right. That is exactly what happens.
I don`t think it is logical though.
As a proud director of a movie, going through all the trouble of creating a scene by using realistic uniforms, accents, backgrounds etc etc.....why not go all the way and make it a 100% realistic?
Wasting money you say...but check those goofs in general!
Would it really cost that much more to:

-Not make glasses jump from left to right between scenes.
-Not make half-eaten hamburgers appear as complete burgers.
-Not change the clothes of the characters in a middle of a scene.
-Not have shot wounds move all over the body of a victim.
-Not have a person doing the same act twice in a row (that one I really find hard to understand), like throwing something on the floor and then throwing the same thing on the floor only 3 seconds later.
-Not having a car driving on the right 2 wheels and subsequently emerging from an alleyway on the left 2 wheels etc etc etc etc.

All these things appear pretty cheap to avoid, wouldn`t you agree?
And don`t get me started on the incorrect facts so often found in the script. Is it really that expensive to fact-check the script?

If it`s only about keeping the crowd "immersed in the story", then it doesn`t really matter that the Roman army walks around on Nike Air Max; does it?
You have gone all the way with beautiful Roman uniforms, why not keep it a 100% accurate?

That is obviously NOT how it works, I realize that.....and my only point is that I find that fact very surprising.
I thoroughly enjoy these Goofs-pages after watching a movie......to see how many I caught.

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

Would it really cost that much more to:-Not make glasses jump from left to right between scenes.-Not make half-eaten hamburgers appear as complete burgers.-Not change the clothes of the characters in a middle of a scene.-Not have shot wounds move all over the body of a victim.-Not have a person doing the same act twice in a row (that one I really find hard to understand), like throwing something on the floor and then throwing the same thing on the floor only 3 seconds later.-Not having a car driving on the right 2 wheels and subsequently emerging from an alleyway on the left 2 wheels etc etc etc etc.

All those would require reshoots, so yes, the cost would add up quickly.

notaxonrotax wrote:

All these things appear pretty cheap to avoid, wouldn`t you agree?

Cheap to avoid, sure, but someone has to realize that the half-eaten hamburger used to be a complete burger. And I doubt there's a Hamburger Wrangler job on set.

And if you have 10 shots of a particular scene to choose from, you'll probably choose whichever one was best-acted, or had the best feel or whatever, not based on hamburger continuity.

notaxonrotax wrote:

If it`s only about keeping the crowd "immersed in the story", then it doesn`t really matter that the Roman army walks around on Nike Air Max; does it?

Depends on how noticeable it is to the audience. If the shoes are prominent and distracting, then yes it does matter. If they're generally hidden and/or not clearly visible, then it probably doesn't matter.

notaxonrotax wrote:

That is obviously NOT how it works, I realize that.....and my only point is that I find that fact very surprising.

I'm surprised at how many there are in movies, but then I think back, and I realize that didn't notice 99% of them when watching the movie. So I think the directors/producers/editors made the right choice in generally ignoring those small issues.

One thing that rates Apollo 13 above other based on history films, is not having Mel Gibson anywhere near it!

I just feel reminded of the witty texts that are displayed when Kerbal Space Program is loaded.

One of them is "Stirring oxygen tanks..."


David

notaxonrotax wrote:

Would it really cost that much more to:

-Not make glasses jump from left to right between scenes.
-Not make half-eaten hamburgers appear as complete burgers.
-Not change the clothes of the characters in a middle of a scene.
-Not have shot wounds move all over the body of a victim.
-Not have a person doing the same act twice in a row (that one I really find hard to understand), like throwing something on the floor and then throwing the same thing on the floor only 3 seconds later.
-Not having a car driving on the right 2 wheels and subsequently emerging from an alleyway on the left 2 wheels etc etc etc etc.

All these things appear pretty cheap to avoid, wouldn`t you agree?

Actually, those errors are not cheap to avoid. Well, some may very well be, but

a) you don't have a 50" 4k TV on set, until fairly recently image quality to check a shot was not much better than your old homevideo camera in HI8 and SVHS, on a rather small display with sub-optimum light under time pressure. Time on set is freaking expensive, and continuity errors are not priority 1 ultra.
b) they may notice the inconsistency In a scene, but still use it because it just is the best take in any other regard.
c) sometimes even a practice take may turn out to be the best one (that is where some of the clothing/hair cut/wounds moving stuff comes from).
d) dirty/blood smeared clothing is incredibly hard to replicate the next day or during a re-take days or weeks later.
e) contingency errors may be accepted if you otherwise get a more obvious one, like car turns lining up wrong in the movie if you dont use that one shot that is obviously wrong as well.

Try make an amateur movie, even just 15 minutes long....if you have cuts in it, you get errors.

Movies are usually made to be seen once, not to be watched 20 times to pick out errors.

Back on topic, the staging events are all not from Apollo 13, but 6 or 8. Do I know that? Yes. Do I enjoy the movie any less because of it? Nope...

Best regards
Thomas

I just watched Apollo 13 this night. When the Saturn V lifted off, I thought... "Hey, there must be a live webcast..." - and presto, on ulalaunch.com was the Atlas V-Centaur launch, just minutes away!

Again, I thoroughly enjoyed that film. It's the third or fourth time I've seen it, and what I enjoy most is the feeling of space travel, and feeling the tension down there in Houston.

But alas, I noticed a two goofs:
- When Jim Lovell covers the moon with his thumb, the stars around the moon are well visible. As any amateur stargazer can tell... no, this doesn't happen.
- On a car roof, there is a satellite uplink antenna with a wooden tripod. Huh? The early C-band antennas were quite large...

notaxonrotax wrote:

Would it really cost that much more to:

-Not make glasses jump from left to right between scenes.
-Not make half-eaten hamburgers appear as complete burgers.
-...

People who do that for a job are called continuity supervisors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_supervisor

Wookiepedia: "There is usually only one script supervisor on a given film production."

Anything is a compromise. You have a scene that works magnificently, but somebody has The Wrong Trousers on? Keep it anyway. (Funnily, this clay-motion picture has many continuity errors... like suddenly vanishing wrist watches.)

David

Airstud wrote:

I also couldn't buy that Lovell could see the lunar surface when they were round the far side; I thought the whole point of the far side of the moon was that it was in shadow.

The moon is lit on that side half of the time, just like the earth. Easy way to think about it...is to imagine what happens when there is an eclipse.

One thought experiment that never evades me whenever this movie comes up is this:

If Ken Mattingly had actually flown aboard the mission instead of assisting on the ground utilizing the simulators and his expertise to develop a successful CM power-up procedure, would Apollo XIII still have become the "successful" failure it is known to be, or would there have been another plaque placed up on the Astronaut Memorial Wall at KSC containing the names James A. Lovell Jr., Thomas Kenneth Mattingly II, and Fred W. Haise Jr.?

PowerliftDrsTX wrote:

I think the big lesson we can all take away is that you should never travel with Tom Hanks...?

Apollo 13
Captain Phillips
Castaway
Sully....

No,, truly though, I love this movie even to this day. I have always had a crush on the Saturn V system and my 6-year-old, who is quite taken with being an astronaut one day runs around the house with models of the Saturn V telling people "This is the stage 1 booster" "this is the service module" "this is the LEM"...... its one of the first movies hes ever sat and watched entirely (that isn't animated)

He may be too young at 6, but I can't recommend the Saturn V / Apollo 11 Lego set enough! Something about putting it together and imagining the thousands of components from different suppliers and all of the history is mesmerizing. It's tough to find in stock and it'll be discontinued soon, but keep an eye on the Lego website and it'll show up at some point for a day or two.

KFLLCFII wrote:

One thought experiment that never evades me whenever this movie comes up is this:

If Ken Mattingly had actually flown aboard the mission instead of assisting on the ground utilizing the simulators and his expertise to develop a successful CM power-up procedure, would Apollo XIII still have become the "successful" failure it is known to be, or would there have been another plaque placed up on the Astronaut Memorial Wall at KSC containing the names James A. Lovell Jr., Thomas Kenneth Mattingly II, and Fred W. Haise Jr.?

Not to take anything away from Mattingly but it was a joint effort on the ground, the other Astronauts involved included the back up crew, Young, Duke and Ken, as well as Mitchell (Apollo 14) and others who were either CM or LM specialists, which was most Apollo Astronauts.
Mattingly not only avoided Apollo 13 but as a CMP on Apollo 16, he had a longer flight, '16 being a J mission. As well as doing an EVA, 180,000-150,000 miles from Earth, to retrieve film and other instruments from the SIM Bay, a panel on the CSM used for a variety of observations of the Moon from orbit which Mattingly operated while Young and Duke were on the Moon.
Not only were these '2001 EVA's' (as in the film) spectacular experiences, only 3 people have ever done them, Worden on Apollo 15, Mattingly on '16 and the late Ron Evans on Apollo 17.

He was also unique in being bumped so close to a mission, this being a dramatic and true story made the film focus more heavily on an already established character.
When you hear actors and directors say a character is often a mix of different people, this is a good example.
Apollo 13 was aimed at the general audience, had to have pace, so the writers could not have too many (in an already pretty big cast) introductions on more and varied characters, which would slow the pacing and confuse the audience, if anything Apollo 13 already had a large enough cast for this aspect of the film.

There is however another bit of invention, when Lovell says to his wife just prior to telling her that he's on Apollo 13 (he was originally to command '14 due later in 1970), by saying 'Al Shepard's ear infection has flared up' and they are swapping missions.
Shepard was grounded from 1964-68 with an ear condition which was eventually fixed by surgery, getting back on the crew rotation, as Commander of Apollo 13.
He had however by then only flown that first sub-orbital Mercury-Redstone flight in 1961, his crew were rookies, so NASA decreed that they needed more time to train, so they were swapped with Lovell's crew.

Easier to condense the reason for the crew swap in one sentence of exposition than break the pace to the film by explaining as in the paragraph above and it has a basis in truth, Al and his ear problem.
And yes I did spot that when I first saw the film over 20 years ago and no it did not affect my enjoyment of it, I got why they did it.

John Young would often tell his audience during talks 'have y'all seen that movie, Apollo 13? Well that Saturn V wasn't as rough a ride as they show'. Young flew on it twice, however other Astronauts who also rode it DID think it as rough as shown.
But then the great John Young also flew on a converted ICBM in Gemini and of course the Space Shuttle.

alaskan9974 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

I also couldn't buy that Lovell could see the lunar surface when they were round the far side; I thought the whole point of the far side of the moon was that it was in shadow.

The moon is lit on that side half of the time, just like the earth. Easy way to think about it...is to imagine what happens when there is an eclipse.

Here is the moon phases for April 1970.

https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1970/april

April 13th is a first quarter moon which is the day the accident happened provided they circled the moon on that day or the next day then half of the lit side of the moon would have line of sight with earth and half the dark side. This when they went to blackout they would see some of the lit side of the moon.

If they were to circle the moon when it is at new moon the entire earth facing side would be dark and the far side where they lose line of sight with earth and thus communications and they would see the light side of the moon.

One error that I noticed after looking into it is that when the Apollo 11 landing happened on July 20, 1969 the moon phase is a Waxing crescent, visible low in the sky in in the early evening. In the movie they show a Waxing Gibbous (nearly full moon) which is high in the sky. Not the case in July when the moon a full or close to full moon is rather low to the horizon. I am surprised that Neil Degrasse Tyson hasn't mentioned this as he grilled James Cameron for having an inaccurate star map when doing Titanic.

Moon phases for July 1969.
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1969/july

luv2cattlecall wrote:

PowerliftDrsTX wrote:

I think the big lesson we can all take away is that you should never travel with Tom Hanks...?

Apollo 13
Captain Phillips
Castaway
Sully....

No,, truly though, I love this movie even to this day. I have always had a crush on the Saturn V system and my 6-year-old, who is quite taken with being an astronaut one day runs around the house with models of the Saturn V telling people "This is the stage 1 booster" "this is the service module" "this is the LEM"...... its one of the first movies hes ever sat and watched entirely (that isn't animated)

He may be too young at 6, but I can't recommend the Saturn V / Apollo 11 Lego set enough! Something about putting it together and imagining the thousands of components from different suppliers and all of the history is mesmerizing. It's tough to find in stock and it'll be discontinued soon, but keep an eye on the Lego website and it'll show up at some point for a day or two.

Are you somehow accessing my browsing history???? HAHA WOW! I just saw that saturn V lego set on facebook THIS WEEK. I was on the fence about buying it at first but I am sold. ebay here i come....

GDB wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

One thought experiment that never evades me whenever this movie comes up is this:

If Ken Mattingly had actually flown aboard the mission instead of assisting on the ground utilizing the simulators and his expertise to develop a successful CM power-up procedure, would Apollo XIII still have become the "successful" failure it is known to be, or would there have been another plaque placed up on the Astronaut Memorial Wall at KSC containing the names James A. Lovell Jr., Thomas Kenneth Mattingly II, and Fred W. Haise Jr.?

Not to take anything away from Mattingly but it was a joint effort on the ground, the other Astronauts involved included the back up crew, Young, Duke and Ken, as well as Mitchell (Apollo 14) and others who were either CM or LM specialists, which was most Apollo Astronauts.
Mattingly not only avoided Apollo 13 but as a CMP on Apollo 16, he had a longer flight, '16 being a J mission. As well as doing an EVA, 180,000-150,000 miles from Earth, to retrieve film and other instruments from the SIM Bay, a panel on the CSM used for a variety of observations of the Moon from orbit which Mattingly operated while Young and Duke were on the Moon.
Not only were these '2001 EVA's' (as in the film) spectacular experiences, only 3 people have ever done them, Worden on Apollo 15, Mattingly on '16 and the late Ron Evans on Apollo 17.

He was also unique in being bumped so close to a mission, this being a dramatic and true story made the film focus more heavily on an already established character.
When you hear actors and directors say a character is often a mix of different people, this is a good example.
Apollo 13 was aimed at the general audience, had to have pace, so the writers could not have too many (in an already pretty big cast) introductions on more and varied characters, which would slow the pacing and confuse the audience, if anything Apollo 13 already had a large enough cast for this aspect of the film.

There is however another bit of invention, when Lovell says to his wife just prior to telling her that he's on Apollo 13 (he was originally to command '14 due later in 1970), by saying 'Al Shepard's ear infection has flared up' and they are swapping missions.
Shepard was grounded from 1964-68 with an ear condition which was eventually fixed by surgery, getting back on the crew rotation, as Commander of Apollo 13.
He had however by then only flown that first sub-orbital Mercury-Redstone flight in 1961, his crew were rookies, so NASA decreed that they needed more time to train, so they were swapped with Lovell's crew.

Easier to condense the reason for the crew swap in one sentence of exposition than break the pace to the film by explaining as in the paragraph above and it has a basis in truth, Al and his ear problem.
And yes I did spot that when I first saw the film over 20 years ago and no it did not affect my enjoyment of it, I got why they did it.

John Young would often tell his audience during talks 'have y'all seen that movie, Apollo 13? Well that Saturn V wasn't as rough a ride as they show'. Young flew on it twice, however other Astronauts who also rode it DID think it as rough as shown.
But then the great John Young also flew on a converted ICBM in Gemini and of course the Space Shuttle.

good read. thanks

Having seen Apollo 13, clearly the movie is just that, a movie.

However, IMO it does a good job of capturing the essential points.

It is a bit dramatized at times, but overall it is a great movie.

Apollo 13 also is relatively accurate on many things. Not all, like the Saturn V being transported to the Launch pads 5 days before Launch, but generally it is very well made.

I loved the movie. A bit patriotic, but hey, that is what Apollo was about.