Author Topic: For All Mankind (Read 227804 times)

Mongo62 · « **Reply #280 on:** 01/15/2021 09:24 pm »

I really enjoyed the first season, but by all appearances, the second season has jumped the shark. A Space Shuttle look-alike to lunar orbit? Even if it were energetically possible to do so, the payload mass fraction would be abysmal. I simply cannot stomach such a ridiculous deviation from technological realism.

Blackstar · « **Reply #281 on:** 01/15/2021 09:32 pm »

Quote from: Mongo62 on 01/15/2021 09:24 pm

I really enjoyed the first season, but by all appearances, the second season has jumped the shark. A Space Shuttle look-alike to lunar orbit? Even if it were energetically possible to do so, the payload mass fraction would be abysmal. I simply cannot stomach such a ridiculous deviation from technological realism.

You have many viewing choices.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #282 on:** 01/15/2021 09:46 pm »

Quote from: Mongo62 on 01/15/2021 09:24 pm

I really enjoyed the first season, but by all appearances, the second season has jumped the shark. A Space Shuttle look-alike to lunar orbit? Even if it were energetically possible to do so, the payload mass fraction would be abysmal. I simply cannot stomach such a ridiculous deviation from technological realism.

Yet I bet the fighters of Stars Wars zooming through space like there was an atmosphere is OK?

There are few science fiction shows that don't require the suspension of belief in physics or logic, so while I too personally think sending a Space Shuttle to the Moon makes no sense, it is not enough for me to not enjoy the entertainment part of the show.

My $0.02

P.S. Rumor has it that Apple is extending, again, the free period for Apple + from February to July, meaning people like me that got a free year of Apple + for buying an iPhone or having the right phone carrier, don't have to worry about missing out on Season 2 of this show for free.

Skylon · « **Reply #283 on:** 01/19/2021 12:52 pm »

I'm actually a little more interested in giving this series a shot. Season 1 from what I saw/read had some things that bugged me from a historical standpoint. Glossing over how the Soviets exactly beat the US, the perceptions about Apollo 10 being tied to risk-aversion, and the need to push aside historical figures due to the inevitable problems with alt-history.

But now, by jumping into the 1980's the series is free of a lot of that. Its less a question of "how did the alternate history scenario happen?" and instead "This is the scenario created by the Soviets landing first - now lets see how the world is different" - free to chart its own course without a lot of the baggage of the questions surrounding the point of deviation.

the_other_Doug · « **Reply #284 on:** 01/19/2021 03:24 pm »

There are also specific changes to people and their emotional and intellectual makeup, as well. I will specifically point to their version of Mike Collins, who insists in this fictional work that "we've talked about this for months, you know I'm not coming home alone. Now, find them!" (That's a paraphrase, I don't have the episode right in front of me.)

Collins' actual point of view was that, if Armstrong and Aldrin were killed and he was presented with the opportunity to come home alone, he would come home "forthwith, but I will be a marked man for life, and I know it".

The Soviets beating the USA to the first human lunar landing could not, in my view, change Collins' perceptions or intent. If he was left as the sole survivor of Apollo 11, he would have burned TLI and come home. That was under *any* circumstances, whether the landing attempt was mankind's first, second, or 23rd. And was likely the way every CMP approached their training to burn TLI alone. A pointless CMP suicide would not bring the guy's crewmates back, nor would his death serve any national or propaganda purpose.

So, as with many alternate histories, they had to push the actual people they were forced to use into motivational directions that would have been well-nigh impossible in real life. Which always sort of ruins most alternate histories for me...

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #285 on:** 01/22/2021 04:37 am »

Quote from: Blackstar on 01/15/2021 09:32 pm

Quote from: Mongo62 on 01/15/2021 09:24 pm
I really enjoyed the first season, but by all appearances, the second season has jumped the shark. A Space Shuttle look-alike to lunar orbit? Even if it were energetically possible to do so, the payload mass fraction would be abysmal. I simply cannot stomach such a ridiculous deviation from technological realism.

You have many viewing choices.

That is not his point; I think it's because he holds the show in high esteem and a higher standard of technical accuracy. I too believe shoehorning a Shuttle into this series is intellectually and technically lazy. In fact; I believe that if the parallel universe portrayed in the series had actually come to pass; the Rockwell International Space Transportation System would not have existed in the form we know it in.

tater · « **Reply #286 on:** 01/22/2021 04:51 am »

I watched the first season, and the Sea Dragon peaked my interest.

I saw the trailer for season 2 with the Shuttle in it—and didn't watch season 2 at all.

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #287 on:** 01/22/2021 04:53 am »

It hasn't been released yet?! Unless you somehow got a sneak preview...

Blackstar · « **Reply #288 on:** 02/09/2021 03:25 am »

https://thespacereview.com/article/4119/1

It is very cold in space: Season 2 of “For All Mankind”
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, February 8, 2021

Early in the first episode of the second season of AppleTV+’s series “For All Mankind,” a group of astronauts assembles on the lunar surface to watch the sunrise accompanied by a bit of music that is clearly an homage to Brian Eno’s 1983 album “Apollo: Atmospheres and Soundtracks.” Eno recorded that music as the soundtrack to Al Reinert’s documentary “Apollo,” re-released under the title “For All Mankind.” Reinert’s documentary was a masterpiece, beautifully edited and composed, and the fact that it is referenced in the new series—reappearing in the final episode—is an indication of just how fluent the show’s makers are with the language and the culture of the American space program.

So often, Hollywood demonstrates only a thin understanding of the subject matter of the shows it produces. Real doctors, lawyers, police officers, theologians, scientists, psychologists, teachers, engineers, and astronauts watch programs about their professions and scoff at how little they get right. TV writers quite often seem to get their knowledge of complex subjects from Wikipedia. But “For All Mankind” is different. It is almost as if the show has dropped its cameras into the time period (the late 1960s and early 1970s in season one, 1983 in season two) and filmed what actually happened, even though it didn’t… but could have.

The show’s strengths go beyond its level of verisimilitude. This is one of the few shows on television that is about something, that has questions to ask and answers to pose and ideas to explore. The show’s second season is mostly successful at doing that, although it stumbles a bit at the finish line.

laszlo · « **Reply #289 on:** 02/09/2021 12:09 pm »

Verisimilitude - fancy word for landing an LM sideways into a rock, breaking off its legs and surviving to successfully complete the mission and return to earth anyway?

Dwayne Day totally disqualified himself from judging a spaceflight-related show with this review.

jstrotha0975 · « **Reply #290 on:** 02/09/2021 01:03 pm »

Not trying to be political here, but shouldn't the show be called For All Womankind? I mean, it's about a female space program.

Lars-J · « **Reply #291 on:** 02/09/2021 05:48 pm »

Quote from: laszlo on 02/09/2021 12:09 pm

Verisimilitude - fancy word for landing an LM sideways into a rock, breaking off its legs and surviving to successfully complete the mission and return to earth anyway?

Dwayne Day totally disqualified himself from judging a spaceflight-related show with this review.

Not sure why you bother to watch anything when you have already judged things before watching them. But that is the burden of foresight I assume?

Quote from: jstrotha0975 on 02/09/2021 01:03 pm

Not trying to be political here, but shouldn't the show be called For All Womankind? I mean, it's about a female space program.

If that was what you were trying for, you failed.

This comment is baffling to me. Are there no male astronauts in the show? I could have sworn that, but maybe my memory is failing.

---

I agree that there are some "on the surface" strange things in the trailer, but the show has earned enough credit with me after season 1 that I will watch season 2 and judge it on its own merits.

laszlo · « **Reply #292 on:** 02/09/2021 10:23 pm »

Quote from: Lars-J on 02/09/2021 05:48 pm

Quote from: laszlo on 02/09/2021 12:09 pm
Verisimilitude - fancy word for landing an LM sideways into a rock, breaking off its legs and surviving to successfully complete the mission and return to earth anyway?

Dwayne Day totally disqualified himself from judging a spaceflight-related show with this review.

Not sure why you bother to watch anything when you have already judged things before watching them. But that is the burden of foresight I assume?

Not foresight, hindsight. I actually watched their version of Apollo 11 before I read Day's review. And it was not the show I was knocking (I'm willing to suspend my disbelief), it was the reviewer's opinion. Heck, I enjoyed Space Force so why not this?

QuantumG · « **Reply #293 on:** 02/09/2021 10:32 pm »

February 19, 2021

1 · « **Reply #294 on:** 02/10/2021 12:46 am »

Quote from: jstrotha0975 on 02/09/2021 01:03 pm

Not trying to be political here, but shouldn't the show be called For All Womankind? I mean, it's about a female space program.

Assuming this question was indeed asked in good faith, it's a direct reference to the message present on the actual dedication plaque attached to the Apollo 11 lunar module. Though common knowledge on this forum, many folks are unaware of the plaques existence. The wording on the plaque was perfectly acceptable in its day, and it's the spirit of the message that should be remembered in the modern age and beyond.

rdale · « **Reply #295 on:** 02/10/2021 07:52 pm »

tater · « **Reply #296 on:** 02/10/2021 08:12 pm »

The appearance of the Shuttle in the trailer—not some alternate shuttle concept—made me decide not to really care. I wanted to see the alternate history with Sea Dragon, or with a "real" Space Transportation System, with a shuttle capable of rapid turn around (flyback booster?), a ferry, tug, etc.

Seeing stock footage of Shuttle pretty much killed it for me.

Oersted · « **Reply #297 on:** 02/10/2021 09:03 pm »

Quote from: 1 on 02/10/2021 12:46 am

The wording on the plaque was perfectly acceptable in its day, and it's the spirit of the message that should be remembered in the modern age and beyond.

The wording is perfectly acceptable today as well. Everybody realises that "mankind" refers to all human beings, except for the few who don't WANT to realise it.

Mankind is a beautiful English word.

libra · « **Reply #298 on:** 02/11/2021 06:59 am »

We need a companion "cheese thread" to go along all the whine in this thread...

zubenelgenubi · « **Reply #299 on:** 02/11/2021 07:48 pm »

Quote from: 1 on 02/10/2021 12:46 am

[Apollo 11 plaque]

Tom Hank's IMAX documentary production of Magnificent Desolation 3D (2005) edited the "AD" out of Armstrong's reading of the plaque at the beginning of the film.

An 00's form of Hollywood revisionism?

(I noted this 16 years ago at a preview screening, but didn't dare to ask "Why?" at the time.)