Talk:The Right Stuff (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Film Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Additional Information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Space Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

Help with this template

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

1 Developing
2 Name issue not in book?
3 Coolness
4 "the right stuff"
5 Book vs. Movie
6 Fair use rationale for Image:Rightstuff2.jpg
7 Fair use rationale for Image:Right stuff ver1.jpg
8 What is Air Classics?
9 Fair use rationale for Image:X-1 movie model.jpg
10 Fair use rationale for Image:Yeager and NF-104.jpg
11 long tables of cast and crew
12 Fair use rationale for Image:1080235199.3.jpg

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Coolness

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

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

[edit] "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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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)

Hmmm. Maybe I'll change my username to User:BillBot, and direct all complaints to the help desk! Nice to see you around, Bugs! - BillCJ (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, you might be on to something there. An appropriate redirection to the Help Desk manager, whose name is Helen Waite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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