Jump to content

Talk:The Right Stuff (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Coolness

"In both the book and the movie, the coolest of all the pilots is..." Is he really the one with the lowest temperature, or is this not NPOV. Isn't "coolness" a relative term?

The Fox Man of Fire 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Book vs. Movie

I'm of the opinion that The Right Stuff (film) should be a separate article from this. Generally films and books -- especially films and books as successful and influential as these, each merit their own article. --JayHenry 07:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'll wait for a week before making a change. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Please see: User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Right Stuff (film) and User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Right Stuff (book). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Rightstuff2.jpg

Image:Rightstuff2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Right stuff ver1.jpg

Image:Right stuff ver1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is Air Classics?

[Copied from Talk:The Right Stuff (book). This is where I meant to ask.] --Jtir (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it is [http://www.amazon.com/Air-Classics/dp/B00006K2HU this magazine], but could not find a specific web site or any mention of it in several databases at my library. --Jtir (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Air Classics magazine ran a two-part "making of the film" article by film historian Jim Farmer that documented the behind-the-scenes production work, concentrating on the realism that was entailed in bringing together a large fleet of aircraft in both scale and full-size form.
BTW, not a problem with the "string" above; I readily appreciate that there are subtle differences in the various editions and printings and I quite enjoy our exchanges. You will find that I am actually easy-going rather than that characteristic testy Wiki editor renown for picky, picky edits that seems to be my legacy in this WikyWacky world. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for adding the interesting section based on this source. --Jtir (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:X-1 movie model.jpg

Image:X-1 movie model.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yeager and NF-104.jpg

Image:Yeager and NF-104.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1080235199.3.jpg

Image:1080235199.3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

long tables of cast and crew

Do we really need those long tables of cast and crew in this article? Now half the article is tables. IMDB provides those details, so I don't see why they need to be repeated here. I would prefer to read prose and look at images. A short table of the actors listed in the info box would be sufficient. --Jtir (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Images? From the film itself? How long do you imagine the deletionists would let them survive? Or have you not run afoul of those folks yet? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We are claiming "fair use" in this article. You can read a "fair use rationale" here. --Jtir (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, I will do some "scalloping" and I think the images have so far passed the usual scrutiny, FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks! That's much better. --Jtir (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The deletionists review these things periodically, to try to figure out ways to change the rules and invalidate items that were once considered acceptable. Good luck with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What'd I tell ya? See below. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, at least they warned us this time (I had to ask the deleting admin to restore two images in Metropolis (film), because there was no warning.) And it is fixed — for now. (Bzuk beat me to it, again! :)) I'm guessing that the bot is just looking for the words "fair use" and an article link. You have to claim fair use in an article. --Jtir (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The BetacommandBot is a particularly insidious piece of software that has been blocked a zillion times for exactly this kind of action. It has been reported many times to its originator who cannot or will not fix the bugs inherent in this bot. Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
"Will not" is the operative phrase. In fact, if you go to that user, he directs you to some "help desk", since he doesn't want to be bothered with complaints. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Developing

I just added some observations about the story and gave the movie-bit a separate heading, which seems to make sense. But I based the observations about the story on the film and am not aware of how closely the film follows the book, so correct me if something I said is not in the book. Or else it might be moved to the movie-section. Also, I'm not sure if some bits should really be in a separate 'spoiler'-section. Is there a Wiki-rule about this? DirkvdM 18:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I changed the emphasis of some of these changes, as the film and book obviously differ. I don't think it is right to call the book a fictionalized drama, and the Gus Grissom fact, relating to his name, is not spoken of in the book so I removed it. If it is in the film then could go under that section, but as this article is about both, and the book came first, I thought I'd take it out for clarity. Is that fair? Monkey Tennis 20:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I noticed this talk page entry after I reverted the removal. The Grissom name bit is in the film, so I'll move it there now. By the way, there's also this story that Gagarin was the first man in space because the first choice (I gorget who) had a too German sounding name. I thought about adding that for balance, but it's not in the film, so that wouldn't make sense. DirkvdM 06:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, to maintain the flow of the story I just added that it's from the film. The remark is really about the story, not the film, so, the way the article is now, it makes more sense where it is. DirkvdM 07:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem - I think it's much better now than after my edits. Between us we've got there: I've read the book but not seen the film and you've seen the film but not read the book! Monkey Tennis 12:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure you have gotten there. I have read and seen both the book and the movie and the overview given is more in line with the movie than the book. The movie compressed quite a bit of the early parts into Chuck Yeager's time at Edwards even though a good portion of the book follows (I think) Gordon Cooper's moves through various test programs and the movie has Yeager at Edwards long after he had actually left there. Test Pilot lingo such as "pusing the outside of the envelope" are explained in the book in the context of being a test pilot, not an astronaut. I don't agree, and I don't think other critics of the book would either, that it is about the space race. It is really about the psyche of the test pilot and the almost undefineable notion of the "right stuff" it takes to be one. In fact, the Mecury program is used more as a counterpoint to the testing of experimental and often highly dangerous aircraft because it only required someone to sit in a tin can, not actually act as pilot. Much was made of this difference in the book and Yeager chooses (in the book he chooses, is not forced) to stay a test pilot rather than subject himself to the humiliation of being an astronaut. In the movie, Gus Grissom blowing the hatch and having his capsule sink (in effect, punching out and ending up with a million dollar hole in the desert) is treated as good cinema, but in the book it is juxtaposed against the concept of the test pilot with the "right stuff" always being in control. In the end, Wolfe determines that the seven astronauts do, in fact, possess the right stuff, but only because they demand and get more and more control over the capsule (which they see as an aircraft) and the ability to make decisions that affect their lives. Grissom always contends that the hatch just blew and the other astronauts wonder whether that is true, or if he just didn't have it after all. It is no coincidence that Grissom is used in this way since he ends up dying on the pad in Apollo 1. In the book, things like that don't happen to pilots with the right stuff and that is why much is made of Yeager destroying his F-104, but still walking away under his own steam. All of this could be my own opinion of course, but I think you would find it is in line with critical analysis of what is a fairly solid literary work, not just a launch pad for an action movie. Schaddm 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the book, things like that don't happen to pilots with the right stuff and that is why much is made of Yeager destroying his F-104, but still walking away under his own steam. Yeager didn't crash the NF-104--it departed control because of excessive angle of attack caused not by pilot input but by his jet engine continuing to spool after the switchover to rocket power. He acknowledges repeatedly that survival was luck as much as anything else. Aircraft that depart control are literally uncontrollable--no pilot input produces any effect, good, bad, or indifferent. You are flying a rock at that point. Gus Grissom's death was nothing to do with flight of any kind--it was a manufacturer's defect. To suggest that the blowing of the hatch showed a lack of right stuff because he was later killed is a huge stretch.--Buckboard 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Buckboard, i think the key thing you're missing there is in the book, or in the movie. What technically happened in real life is not really relevant here - it's how the film and the movie portray it. I think Schaddm's analysis is pretty accurate in regards to how the film and the book portray those events. You'll notice that as Ridley and the driver find Yeager near the crash site, the driver doesn't say "is that Yeager?" or "there he is," but "is that a man?". In the film, Yeager represents the very definition of a man, or of the right stuff, and the NF-104 crash is portrayed in a way consistent with that. there is a bit more ambiguity about the astronauts, but as Schaddm states, i think they start off as just "spam in a can" and rookies, and eventually prove themselves. In fact, the last word we hear on Grissom's mishap is what Yeager says as he's watching the TV report with Ridley: "Ol' Gus, he did alright." Sebs26 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary seems disorganized and mentions random events in the movie (sometimes out of order) and towards the end just points out humorous parts. Someone who's seen the movie lately should clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.34.169 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles

--articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy e.g. X-1

Would it make sense to open a section like "historical accuracy"? For example, right in the beginning the movie suggests Yeager broke the sound barrier after another pilot died flying a Bell X-1, but I can't find anything about such an accident. -- Flipote (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of test pilots died in the evaluation of the new "hot ships" but none of the pilots were flying the X-1 and the film does not make that direct connection (see below). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC).
When the anonymous pilot fatally crashes right in the beginning, X-1 footage is used in that connection, and it is also put in this context by the narrator. IMDb supports that (The Right Stuff goofs, way down the list). On the other hand, this list is so long (and IMHO not even complete) that maybe I should just link it. But then, it maybe should be made more clear that the makers of the film took a lot of artistic freedom, to make a rather technical process, colaboratively solved by many individuals, into a Hollywood-compatible story of personal adventure and heroism. -- Flipote (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The "demon in the sky" prologue sequence was a contrived bit of film making, and if you watch the scene carefully, it is ultimately revealed to be a dream where the pilot's wife is imagining the flight where her husband died. Already gripping her daughter tightly at the doorstep, she then awaits the grim spectre of death in the personage of the ubiquitous undertaker. I agree that the filmmakers left the impression that it was an X-1 flight out of control and making it a dream sequence allowed them the freedom to implant in the viewer's mind that the test pilot getting into the X-1 (in reality it would have been one of the company test pilots, either Bell Aircraft Chief Test Pilot, Jack Woolams or Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin, the only pilots to fly the X-1 before Chuck Yeager) died in the crash. Woolams was killed in an air racing incident prior to the high speed tests of the X-1, while "Slick" was a highly regarded, somewhat flamboyant test pilot who demanded a cash settlement before undertaking the dangerous supersonic flights. The film makes that clear later as the USAAF eventually puts a young Captain Yeager into the cockpit as part of his day-to-day testing duties. If the viewer watches the opening scenes carefully, Yeager, his chase pilot, 1st Lt Bob Hoover and the engineering test pilot, Major (I think) Jack Ridley are looking disdainfully at the swaggering, grinning test pilot getting into the X-1 (obviously a "photo op" as the X-1 did not fly with the pilot inside when it was coupled to the B-29 "mother ship."), clearly acting the part of the brave "flyboy." The test pilots at Muroc (Edwards) mocked the antics of Goodlin, although begrudgingly acknowledging his flying abilities. I think that the historical accuracies section, however, does have some merit as the film did attempt to recreate the atmosphere of the period with authentic locations, use of period aircraft, equipment and replicas (film models usually used as stage dressing) but it would be a large undertaking to chronicle all the historical accuracies and inaccuracies present. I do like your overriding statement about the efforts made to create a historically relevant film within the confines of the film medium. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC).


Film models section

There's a mention that one of the aircraft featured in the film is an A-7 Corsair II. I presume this is in reference to a brief cutaway of an aircraft being launched from an aircraft carrier after a shot of an A-4 Skyhawk being lined up on the catapault. I believe the aircraft being launched is an F-8 Crusader not an A-7 Corsair II. The two aircraft look similar, so this will need confirmation from an expert. Tczuel (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's an A-7 with other A-7s lined up on the carrier deck as Cmdr Shepard (Scott Glenn) makes his approach to the carrier. The F-8 would have been the correct aircraft in terms of chronology but at the time of the filming, the Crusader was retired. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"the right stuff"

I'm reading "Stowaway to Mars" by John Wyndham (scifi author most famous for "The Day of the Triffids") and I noticed he uses the expression "The Right Stuff" to refer to one of the astronauts on the rocket ship Gloria Mundi, which is headed to Mars. From the second paragraph of Chapter 6:

"Geoffrey Dugan, the youngest of them, took the least trouble to hide his feelings. Dale looked sympathetically at his eyes shining brightly with excitement...The lad was the right stuff. He was glad that he had chosen him out of the thousands of possibles to be his assistant pilot and navigator."

This books was first published in 1935; I'm wondering if this is the first usage of the expression to refer to pilots/astronauts.

--162.15.75.3 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Joy M


can non one consult the OED to find out? not sure if they do phrases, though. Thisuser (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statistic quoted

In the article under "Reaction", the following statement is included with Tom Wolfe's book indicated as the source:

"Another fact that had been altered in the film was the statement by Trudy Cooper, who commented that she "wondered how they would've felt if every time their husband went in to make a deal, there was a one-in-four chance he wouldn't come out of that meeting." According to the book, this actually reflected the 23% chance of dying during a 20-year career as a normal pilot. For a test pilot, these odds were higher, at 53%, but were still considerably less than the movie implied."

In fact, the book states that the higher odds were for a test pilot that would have to "eject from his aircraft and attempt to come down by parachute," not dying. The statement by Trudy Cooper in the film is taken directly from Tom Wolfe, though he places the idea in the head of another pilot's wife, Jane Conrad, who is also not known to have said it. Because this was one of many, perhaps thousands of creative decisions made by director Philip Kaufman when adapting the book, it seems unreasonable to single it out as a mistake.

The complete quote, from the beginning of Chapter 2 (page 17 of the book and page 55 of the eBook version) is as follows:

"In time, the Navy would compile statistics showing that for a career Navy pilot, i.e., one who intended to keep flying for twenty years as Conrad did, there was a 23 percent probability that he would die in an aircraft incident. This did not even include combat deaths, since the military did not classify death in combat as accidental. Furthermore, there was a better than even chance, a 56 percent probability, to be exact, that at some point a career Navy pilot would have to eject from his aircraft and come down by parachute."

If the 53% statistic listed in the article is indeed correct for test pilots, that number does not appear anywhere in the Tom Wolfe book and a proper reference for this estimate needs to be included. I have left the quote here for reference, but removed it from the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlemur (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeager Cameo

Isn't Yeager the guy with the broom which gets cut down to make the stick that the fictional Yeager (Shepard) uses to help latch the hatch on the X-1? That's how I understood it. I see here and in other places that he is described as the bartender at Pancho's. I don't think the broom cutting took place at Pancho's but in a hangar. I don't see a male bartender at Pancho's except someone hanging a photo but that guy is clearly not Yeager. So I think it's broom guy but that's at a hangar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.6.152 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Yeager is Fred the bartender/handyman. The character you are thinking of is Col. Jack Ridley played by the late, great Levon Helm. Watch the film again, and you see Yeager in a few scenes at Pancho Barnes's Happy Bottom Riding Club. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC).

Crew death

According to List of film accidents, a stuntman died during filming. Shouldn't this be included here? Mjworthey (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one else is going to fix this so I will. It's unclear whether he was Joseph or Joe. There is a suspicion that he was incapacitated by smoke but apparently no firm cause for his death was found. There is apparently a dedication to him in the credits; I don't have a copy of the film to hand. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Name issue not in book?

I just read the book and and the issue of "Gus" being an inappropriate name for an astronaut but being better than the Russian sounding Ivan - this was definately mentioned. Sorry I can't suppy a page number, but I remember it being in there.

Peace, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.235 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gus Grissom controversy

Regarding the film's treatment of Gus Grissom blowing the hatch of his Liberty Bell 7, the body of the article states that "even Tom Wolfe's book only states that this possibility was considered, not that it was actually judged as being the cause of the accident." In fact, chapter 11 of Wolfe's book (entitled "The Unscrewable Pooch") very clearly paints the incident as being perceived as Grissom's fault, regardless of what actually happened: "Oh, it was obvious to everybody at Edwards that Grisson had just fucked it, screwed the pooch, that was all." and "Oh, there was no question that he had hit the damn button in some way." (Wolfe, p. 696).

Wolfe plainly states the theory of Grisson's panic (Wolfe eBook, p696), the stability of the hatch detonator ("[The engineers] subjected [the hatch] to trial by water, trial by heat; they shook it, pounded it, dropped it on concrete from a height of one hundred feet--and it never just blew." (Wolfe eBook p.695), his defense that it "just blew", the assumption that he was lying about that (Wolfe eBook, p.697), NASA's official determination that despite the loss of the capsule the mission was publicly determined to be a "success" (p. 700), Betty Grissom's "sneaking suspicion that everyone was saying just out of earshot: "Gus blew it" (Wolfe, p. 701), her confrontation of him and his defense ("I did not do anything wrong!" (Wolfe eBook p. 705)) and her thought that she was considered "the Honorable Mrs. Squirming Hatch Blower!" (Wolfe eBook, p. 709).

While it may be true that Grissom was declared to be not at fault before the film came out, Kaufman was using Wolfe's version as his guideline for his story and in fact, much of the dialogue of this sequence of the film was taken almost verbatim from the book. In addition, Kaufman does not actually show Grissom pushing the hatch detonator button in the film at all, either on purpose or accidentally. Critics may have faulted Kaufman for his portrayal of Grissom's role in the incident, but it's untrue that his version differed from Wolfe's. I therefore have altered the wording in the main article to reflect this.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlemur (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Right_Stuff_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=906506244"