Ryan Gosling stumbles at box office again

It was *barely* advertised (that I saw); I didnt even know it was out yet.

Maybe that’s why it didn’t do well first weekend?

The days when people go to a movie because of who's in it are long gone. If it does poorly, it's not Fleming's fault. He's a good actor and I personally love him. However, the subject matter does not interest me, so I will not see it.

Sorry, Gosling, not Fleming.

This may have had something to do with it. The Reich wasn't happy with no American flag being planted on the moon.

I agree with R2. I like Gosling a great deal but "First Man" looks like a bore.

Considering the holdovers subject matter, it would appear people are opting for escapism no matter how tired (Venom) or overdone (A Star Is Born)

OP = Justin Timberlake's non existent movie career.

Granted the US Space Program is also both tired and overdone.

And fake!

How was the direction ?

Is this a remake of the Tom Hanks space movie? Does anyone die?

Can someone post the sad Damien Chazelle onstage during BP mishap GIF? Too lazy to search for it.

Who is the brunette actor in the middle of the photo at R4? He’s hawt.

He should do some stupid film with good looking people like Tequila Sunrise.

God Mel Gibson was something pretty before the mullet took over his head.

I initially thought it was Paul Schneider, but it's Shawn Eric Jones.

The Space Program? It seems completely dry and boring to me.

I find him completely unappealing and overrated, but Blade Runner 2049 was good.

He’s so boring. And he’s already losing his fake looks.

Holy fuck Shawn Eric Jones is hot as hell. Fantastic nipples.

[quote]Granted the US Space Program is also both tired and overdone.

Hardly. Without the US Space Program, we wouldn't have the computers, phones, tablets, or even the internet that we're all so dependent upon and using at this very moment. The failure of the US to keep at space exploration and making it possible to get off this planet before we destroy it is tragic and will be the reason humanity ultimately dies off. The planet will do just fine recovering once it has rid itself of this parasitic infestation hell bent on destroying it.

Regarding this film (and I hope a studio exec or at least someone in Hollywood gets this information): it looks good, and I will see it, but I haven't been to a theater in years and have no intention of going to one. I can't say I'll never go see a movie in the theater again, but between the outrageous prices for tickets and the highway robbery that is the concession stand (which has little to entice me to make a purchase; can we stop pretending that everyone loves sugar and salt to the exclusion of everything else?), I have little incentive to go. Moreover, the breeders think that bringing children — even babies — to every movie regardless of the rating is acceptable, and I'm tired of the noise, particularly the crying and whining which usually happens at the most critical moment in the film. And why they don't put cellphone reception dampeners in theaters and other performance venues is beyond me; we used to go to the movies and be out of reach for hours at a time, and it was no big deal. Now, it's like people can't be off the grid for more than 2 minutes without going into withdrawals.

Moreover, the only content I am willing to pay for is Amazon Prime and/or Netflix, and I'd do without Prime if it didn't come as a package deal with the two-day shipping upgrade. No, Hollywood sat back as piracy became rampant in the early days of the internet, and acted like there was nothing they could do to stop it and preserve intellectual property for everyone. Why there was no outcry from content creators is beyond me; the only logical conclusion is that it was not in the interests of oligarchs to care about copyright, and since oligarchs are the only people who matter in Trump's America...

Not to digress, but Trump in the White House is only the outward manifestation of how America has been deceived by the 1%; it began a long time ago — about when the events depicted in this movie occurred — just when it was starting to look like average, ordinary people might have a chance at sharing in the wealth of the nation. And we can't have that.

/rant

Luckiest Canadian in Hollywood.

He's white, male, blond, hot and straight. Hollywood will give him at least 10 more chances before they give up on him.

And then another five chances.

Followed by a comeback.

He’s no Peggy Fleming.

He should stop booking the same old boring roles.

What R22 said.

R22 PLUS he’s married to a WOMAN!

[quote]The days when people go to a movie because of who's in it are long gone.

Not really, the problem is there are few American actors that are really good. Gosling had his moment but he's not the kind of personality you can stand forever. Hollywood started poor casting choices in the 80's. By the time we got to the Brat Pack the pool of up and coming greats was dry. Too many that pose in front of a camera and have no idea how to build a character.

You will see more British actors taking the good roles because they have either studied under good teachers or they have personal depth because they do not come from a shallow society like the US.

There is plenty of shallowness in British culture, too.

The problem is that the Brits picked for Hollywood films often have seriously studied acting while US actors are overpopulated with random stud muffins that caught the eye of some producer/director.

Gosling is sooooo bland.

I am not a fan, but even Tom Cruise had something going for him when he was at the top.

R20, that's a great parody of a "get off my lawn" eldergay. 👴🏻

Lol! You beat me to it R32!

R29 - Britain has its own problems with young actors too. Increasingly the only ones going to RADA and the like are all from upper class backgrounds. Working class kids are just not opting to do so - or able to do so - or selected to do so. So guess what? Intake after intake of nice, well brought-up, very pretty people. Just as bland as the model-types that pass for actors in Hollywood.

It’s the same everywhere. Bankable is seen as gorgeous and cover boy/girl pretty. That seems regarded as more important than talent. It makes for boring, charisma-free movie experiences. But great promotional pics!

Gosling has little to no range, from what I've seen.

If Neil Armstrong was alive, he’d be pulling an Olivia deHavilland on the producers. He was a patriot and historically and iconically placed an American flag on the moon. No trace of that man is in the film which rewrites history.

I don’t have cable and I’ve been seeing trailers and promotion for this movie all over the internet. But also because I watched that Sean Penn - Natasha McElhone astronaut show on Hulu. Every other commercial was “First Man”.

But, I am so over Ryan Gosling. He is so self serious. And not very interesting.

Interesting, R35; is the Neil Armstrong of the film very different from the real life one?

(Also: why do you think the filmmakers changed what they did about him?)

I liked him better pre-nosejob when he played a Nazi Jew in THE BELIEVER.

Self serious?

He had a real spark and passion for acting at the time, R38, you could just see it.

He also took a lot of risks with his role choices—often playing villains or otherwise unlikeable characters, not always hero type parts.

I’m not sure if he has that same passion for acting now.

I did think he was excellent in “La La Land” though and that it was one of his best performances in a while.

I’m not sure I’m going to see this movie; I’m undecided...

He's not leading man material and can't carry a movie. The sooner he realizes this, the better.

Ryan Gosling in Canadian Horror Story!

This looked boring AF

Lars and the Real Girl is my favorite performance of his. I haven't seen The Nice Guys, but it seemed like a more lighthearted and comedic role from him.

The Nice Guys was awful. It felt exactly like what it was: a failed pilot.

He one of those actors that can be good (Drive) but is not always good (Ides of March). And is never ever great.

[quote]I haven't seen The Nice Guys, but it seemed like a more lighthearted and comedic role from him.

I thought The Nice Guys was fantastic and Gosling is great at comedy.

I didn't love First Man, but appreciated the artistry of it. It's a really well made film but ultimately feels like a History channel feature about the space race.

I don't know much about Armstrong other than the moon walk but from what I've read he was as stoic and stone-faced as Gosling portrays him in the film.

Will Ryan be snubbed an Oscar nod?

So is First Man about a guy who has dreams so huge, so important, that he masochistically neglects his loved ones to achieve it?

He will probably get an Oscar nod. It reminds me of Jobs, which Michael Fassbender got nomination out of: both Universal October releases; both Oscarbait biopics; both box office misfires.

Besides very weak Oscar race so far: Bradley Cooper really only other certainty at this point.

He was also unmemorable in the dreadful Only God Forgives. You can prominently see his small hands in the film.

[quote]I agree with [R2]. I like Gosling a great deal but "First Man" looks like a bore.

And I'm just the opposite. I was horrified by the casting. I love and admire Neil Armstrong a great deal, but watching Gosling in anything makes me lose the will to live.

The previews looked pretty good. My problem was (no I'm not rethug) not showing the American flag on the moon. It was a big fuckin deal that USA have the first person on the moon! Also, there weren't any American actors to play the leads!? A Canadian and a Brit? C'mon.

Also, it started getting cold this weekend, and I don't wanna go out if I don't have to.

My husband saw it yesterday and was underwhelmed. He came back deflated and depressed.

[quote]The previews looked pretty good. My problem was (no I'm not rethug) not showing the American flag on the moon.

They didn't show the planting of the flag, but it the flag is visible, just in the distance of the scene.

I, too, loved The Nice Guys. Gosling was hysterically funny in it. I really wanted him to win the Oscar that year because he had both Nice Guys and La La Land which were so different than each other.

It looked super boring and like something a teacher would play for you in 9th grade history class.

I like him fine as an actor but I never thought he was that attractive. I never wanted to see a movie about astronates .

[quote]I never wanted to see a movie about astronates .

You're in luck because this is a movie about astronauts.

#1 There was a great deal of controversy about the American flag (or lack of it) that initially hurt the movie.

#2 The first man on the moon was almost 50 years ago. People and society have moved on and are not that interested anymore.

Who keeps trying to make Ryan Gosling happen?

For the sake of history they should have done this:

I thought he was pretty funny in Crazy, Stupid Love. He and Robert Downey Jr. should get together and do a remake of Some Like It Hot. RDJ and Johnny Depp would be a better combo, except Depp has now dropped off the cliff.

Why is he a star, again?

I completely agree with R54. A Canadian and a Brit in an American story as the leads. I really hate stuff like that. And people wonder why we have Trump. Not only that but I didn't like the fact that they didn't put the flag in the film either. You know in the moon.

Foreigners being all over American stories is a big reason why I keep my money in my pocket. And I'm as liberal and progressive as it gets. But there's so much real talent right here in america that never gets a chance because of hollywood and their bull shit.

Haven't been to the movies since 2005 and very proud of it. Hollywood keeps getting it wrong on so many levels. That's why it's an industry in decline.

Wow, R55, why was your husband “deflated and depressed” after viewing it?

I thought it was supposed to be “inspirational”?

I will not see this if it’s a bummer; I don’t want to pay to be depressed right now...

The movie is anti American. They couldn't even put the American flag on the moon. That a lone pissed a lot of people off.

Especially the MAGA crowd. And they live for shit like this.

the flag was actually show many times in the movie. it was a fake controversy, but conservatives are really good at that.

He's such a boring and overrated actor

Budgett$59–70 million

Box officet$5.9 million

Wow, R71, that is bad!!

I’ve also seen almost no advertising for it...

R71 Russian mobsters are going to be mad as hell that the pretty blonde canadian guy didn't make there money back.

Must suck.

What does that mean re Oscars? (I'm referring to R72).

Fassbender and Winslet were both nominated for flop Steve Jobs film

This one looks better and interesting

It sounds like the studio may not be planning on launching much of an awards campaign for the film, if they’re not even investing in proper advertising for the film’s opening, R74.

But you’d think they would try harder with it because it seems to have received (mostly) strong critical reviews...

Someone upthread said that it had a subpar Cinemascore rating with audiences though, which is bad.

Why didn’t the audiences that saw it seem to really like or connect with it?

[quote]Why didn’t the audiences that saw it seem to really like or connect with it?

boring lead actor?

It’s a philosophical film (from what I understand) the deals primarily with the danger of the endeavor and what kind of character was required to be the first human to go to the moon. It’s not really from the Ron Howard school of Apollo 13 crowd pleasers.

R79, are there any famous films it *is* being compared to then (if not the Ron Howard stuff)? (Does it have more of a European art house vibe to it?)

Blade Runner 2049. It’s in the OP.

R79, When will Hollywood understand that there's a significant number of pro-Americana flyover moviegoers that shouldn't keep being ignored if they expect to keep selling movie tickets? Even the solid Democratic voters I know would have wanted to see the US Flag being firmly planted on the moon.

It's like seeing the movie about the Jamaican bobsled team who went to the Olympics and not acknowledging they were from Jamaica. Or watching a story about QE II and not hearing God Saves the Queen. Hello.

Ron Howard film version was Americana personified. Did he really flop overseas?

Blade Runner 2049 | Budget: 185 million . Box office: $259 million

First Man | Budget: 70 million . Box office: 5.9 million

Song to Song | Box office: 1 million

The Nice Guys | Budget: 50 million . Box office: 62.8 million

Lost River | Box office: 0.6 million

Only God Forgives | Budget: 5 million . Box office: 10 million

Gangster Squad | Budget: 75 million . Box office: 105 million

The Place Beyond the Pines | Budget: 15 million . Box office: 47 million

All Good Things | Budget: 20 million . Box office: 0.6 million

Lars and the Real Girl | Budget: 12 million . Box office: 11 million

Stay | Budget: 50 million . Box office: 8 million

Half Nelson | Box Office: 5 million

Apollo 13

Budget: $52 million

Box office: Domestic $173,83 + Foreign $181,4 = $355.2 million

The movie was hella boring + his bland acting in this= Zzzzz

He should make a movie with Calvin Harris as his brother. They can be aging golden-pretty boys who end up somewhere they are considered old and quite unfuckable. They have existential crises and one of them falls in love with a trisomic and the other with a very average 60 something lady. Hilarity ensues.

Ryan Gosling = Box Office Poison! When will Hollywood ever learn?

Between Fassbender, Gosling and Gyllenhaal who's the biggest flop?

I don’t necessarily think this will hurt Gosling since the huge success of “La La Land” was so recent, but I’m surprised by some of the palpable Gosling hate on this thread.

What has he done to you bitches?!

It actually might come in fourth this weekend. It’s b.o. really cooled down.

Also just out the flag planting troll on ignore.

[quote]What has he done to you bitches?!

He has not gone full frontal and/or presented hole on screen yet.

Ultimately the problem with Gosling is that you have someone with esoteric tastes who can get a movie greenlit simply because he chooses to be in it. Someone in his position in the 80s (Mel Gibson) or 90s (Brad Pitt) would show great commercial instincts even if that meant starring in a lot of shit (Tequila Sunrise, Bird on Wire for Mel; Meet Joe Black for Brad). But Gosling has alternated with starring in very tiny art house films and niche mainstream ones. First Man was talked up all year as being a Best Picture frontrunner and the film that was going to get Ryan his Oscar. That’s out the window now. It’s just too niche.

So even though “it’s over, time to call Netflix” is winning the little poll, don’t be surprised if that’s what Gosling opts for. Frankly he might find it rewarding to pursue his niche tastes without the devil of box office failure snickering on his shoulder.

I guess the flag planting bit has really put people off - lots of comments about it on other sites. Was Armstrong not a patriot?

After Lalaland, I vowed never to see another Chazelle film, especially if he wrote it. I realise this is written by someone else but I hated Whiplash and hated Lalaland even more so I’m very wary. Plus when a boring actor like Gosling is described as understated, it sounds pretty dull. I like Claire Foy but in any movie she makes there should always be a scene where she privately puts on a crown and acts like the Queen of England because, frankly, that’s what people want to see her do. (And I not so sure about that Dragon Tattoo movie either.)

Claire Foy was good in the Dragon Tattoo. Don’t shit on that.

He’s this decade’s Shelley Duvall.

I haven’t seen it, R95.

It is kind of funny that most of these people complaining about the flag are probably the same ones who say the moon landing was faked. Anything to get their juices flowing.

The people complaining about the missing flag planting scene are also the same people who believe Russia is our friend now.

Anthony Lane reviewed First Man for The New Yorker and his problem with the movie is the the characterization of Armstrong deeply emotional when the real Armstrong was stoic and taciturn.

Is that fucking flag so fundamental? Focus on other things.

R97 Ok, watch it, then let me know.

Hope Viggo Mortensen gets another nod and sneaks it out from underneath Cooper's beady eyes.

[quote]Foreigners being all over American stories is a big reason why I keep my money in my pocket. And I'm as liberal and progressive as it gets. But there's so much real talent right here in america that never gets a chance because of hollywood and their bull shit.

I'm sort of starting to feel the same way. I'll admit that I've become fans of some Canadians, Brits, and Aussies who have worked on some American TV shows. But, yeah it also sucks that some talented Americans lose roles to people who fake American accents for roles. I remember there was some people bitching all over Twitter last year when that awful Rough Night movie was released with Kate McKinnon playing an Australian. Rooney Mara also got bashed when she played a Brit in the movie Una. It should be seen as fair game if Americans fake other accents for roles.

R98 Your Venn diagram skills need work. I don't believe Vlad is our friend and also don't believe such an iconic moment should be erased from a film like First Man. The company line is that the film is about the man and not about the moon landing or flag planting. Bullshit. Neil Armstrong is known for two moments - stepping on the moon with that quote and planting the flag before saluting it. Don't tell me you're going to lay bare the man Armstrong was by deeply exploring his favorite breakfast cereal but not showing the flag planting.

Not that I agree with the sentiment, but I think the pre-release controversy about the absence of the flag planting moment probably killed the box office for this movie.

Too bad, because although I haven't seen it, it looks like a decent, worthwhile movie.

R66, if you're insisting only US citizens play Americans in Hollywood, you're not as "liberal and progressive as it gets". It is refreshing that anti-immigrant bullshit applies to white allegedly straight male Canadians, but no....

First of all, do you know how much of Hollywood product is made in Canada? THAT you should be complaining about, taking jobs from the lesser paid crew and all the business that comes from filming. BUT they send US actors there to work. So, should all the product made in Canada hire Canadian actors? Which is it?

Second, I am one of the people who posted about how much I do not get Gosling's success, but Gosling is "American" as far as this European is concerned. He's a North American who has lived in the United States since he was a child, "taking jobs" from "American" kids at Disney and so on. Apart from a stint in New Zealand, he's been living and paying taxes in the US for most of his life. Where is this complaint suddenly coming from? And why are you not upset that the very British Clare Foy is playing his wife?

Third, American actors are cast in other countries' films and go overseas to work, taking jobs from local actors. American actors for decades have taken parts in films pretending to be every race and nationality under the son (often badly). I cannot say Gosling is playing an American particularly badly in his works. That includes DL faves Meryl Streep and Glenn Close. I had to sit through Julia Roberts playing Irish and British and Robert Redford pretending to be British and so on. This is nothing new.

And finally, Hollywood is aiming for the international market. Gosling is popular outside of the US. So is Clare Foy at the moment. She gets to play Swedish Lisbeth Salander next, while ironically Alicia Vikander played the very English Lara Croft which was previously played by annoying American Angelina Jolie.

And so it goes.

r104, I doubt it.

Gosling has had a few hits but not big ones. La La Land was a blip. Blade Runner is considered a disappointment for the cost, and the Big Short was a good performer but also starred Brad Pitt, Steve Carrell and Christian Bale.

People are glutted with entertainment. Streaming, DVR, and so on. Venom is at the top of the box office despite horrible reviews. That tells you who is going to the movies.

Deplorables r106

Sony has to be breathing some sighs of relief that Venom is doing ok at the box office as it was an expensive move to make. They probably lost some money on it, but it won't be a big loss.

People are tired of movies about the space program. Michelle Williams was recently to cast to play Christa McAuliffe in a movie. That will probably flop too at the box office.

Yeah the Christs McAuliffe movie won’t be made now. Honestly who wants to see a movie where the heroine blows up at the end.

I can see the argument that the filmgoing audience is tired of seeing movies about the space program. The problem Hollywood has (if not the entire entertainment industry) is that there is a dearth of new ideas and stories that they are willing to take a big risk on developing; hence, all of the reboots and sequel mania that plagues the screen big and small. I don't know whether it's that the space program (and the 60s in general) were the last time that America did great things, or that the stories that do get made into major motion pictures have to appeal to a much wider audience than just the US to be successful, but it seems that we're stuck in a creative rut with the same movies getting made year after year starring the same people in predictable roles (I mean, if Neil Armstrong was a stoic and stone faced man, who better than Gosling to portray him; that's Gosling's entire wheelhouse!) and directed by the same industry stalwarts who've been making and remaking the same films now for nearly 50 years.

It was new and interesting when they did movies about the 50s in the 70s... and then we did movies about the 60s and 70s in the 90s... but since the 90s where a blah decade culturally, it's hard to make movies about the few interesting stories that emerged. I'm sitting here trying to think of what happened in the 90s that would make good movie fodder, and while I admit that I'm not the best person to ask about it, the only things I remember from the 90s were OJ, impeachment and the buildup of SIlicon Valley, and even then, the first topic is simultaneously about and too hot for Hollywood, and the other two are really just one story about how Republicans have destroyed everything that made America great in the first place. Granted, I have a certain bitterness that I'm not afraid to discuss, but as I've been told (here, specifically and repeatedly) [italic]old man yells at cloud[/italic] does not interest moviegoers.

And, of course, we must address the fact that we are in the middle of a dramatic and major change in worldwide political and power structure as the United States' dominance comes to an end, in which success and everything that comes with it bypasses entire generations. I don't think the rest of the world is interested in movies about the disintegration of American culture and won't be until the decline is far enough in the past that it can be revisited with the fondness and historical perspective that only time can provide. I wonder if movies will occupy the same space by then that they have and do still, now.

What are you talking about, r111? The People v. Oj Simpson was a huge hit. You can't tell that story via a movie. Too many moving parts.

I don't mind remakes of bad movies that can be redone correctly. Leave the good ones alone unless you come from a fresh angle.

Universal's critically acclaimed astronaut drama First Man faltered in its box-office blast off, grossing $16.5 million from 3,640 theaters to come in well behind holdovers Venom and A Star Is Born. The hope now is that the adult-skewing film will be buoyed by a slow burn throughout awards season.

Reuniting Oscar-winning filmmaker Damien Chazelle with his La La Land star Ryan Gosling, First Man is a visceral retelling of Neil Armstrong's journey to the moon in 1969. Heading into the weekend, the biographical drama was tracking to open in the $18 million-$20 million range (some services had it slightly higher). Audiences liked the film less than critics, giving it a B+ CinemaScore.

"Our core audience, adult males, don’t necessarily run out on opening weekend," says Jim Orr, Universal's president of domestic distribution, noting that males made up 56 percent of ticket buyers, while more than half of the audience was over the age of 35. "We'll have a great run for weeks and months to come."

[quote] You can't tell that story via a movie.

What are you talking about, R112? You made my point.

Why is anyone seeing A Star is Born? It looks so cheesy.

Oh no, it was expected to make $20 million and instead made $16.5 million?

Ryan is fine, he sents his love.

People are over analyzing this. This movie was simply too long, too serious, stars an aging leading man and everyone already knows the end. Audiences want escapism (Black Panther, Crazy Rich Asians), familiar character (Venom) and melodrama (A Star Is Born). First Man won’t break 50 million domestic and Mary Poppins Returns willl do a billion worldwide and win Best Picture.

[quote]Deplorables R106

Deplorables made Venom a hit? Hardly. It’s a hit thanks to teen boys and thirty-something nerd bros. Check out the very liberal The Ringer- the dudes over there love it for its batshit, so-bad-it’s-good attitude.

As for First Man, the movie looked like a bore, and anyone can cue up any number of documentaries or tv series about Apollo 11 and other space programs on demand or via streaming. Why go to the movies to see an already well-worn story when you can watch a doc on tv for free at home?

"This movie was simply too long, too serious, stars an aging leading man and everyone already knows the end."

Ryan Gosling is "aging"......but Bradley Cooper isn't?!

Bradley Cooper isn’t the star of ASAB, Lady Gaga is.

I can't be the only person who thinks La La Land is one of the worst movies ever made.

La La Land is not a bad movie but it is not a good musical. Good musicals use music and dance to express something the character’s can’t say with words. La La Land does it because Damien likes old movies.

He’s no Keir Dullea in OP’s picture. I don’t get the physical allure. Never did.

There are far, far worse movies than [italic]La La Land[/italic], R121. I don't think it would even make the list of 10 worst films made in the last decade. But I feel your pain (which requires more acting that Gosling can portray).

EW really liked it, gave it a good review, and liked Gosling and Claire Foy.

r125, what's your point? Oh well, if EW liked it.... Lots of critics are enjoying it and praising it for not being too Hollywood, but that may be the problem.

To critics on RT are liking it at 89%. The public at 63%. Word of mouth could kill it.

I think the early panic for First Man is ridiculous and the article is not wrong. Who is waiting these days to rush out to see a movie on opening weekend? Most people think, I'd like to see Movie X, but they know they only "must see" it on the big screen if it's that kind of movie.

Not a Gosling fan as I said above, but I saw Blade Runner 2049 on the big screen because it was made for it. It was fantastic and Gosling was very good (playing a replicant hoping he's human!).

But people have a lot going on. Why rush to see this if Game of Thrones is putting an epic on TV? People have better TVs and have learned to live without the big screen. And this film by being not Hollywood dazzle may fit better on TV.

Right there with you, R121. Terrible movie.

Well with movie like First Man that should be seen on the largest screen possible at the cineplex, it’s important to see it opening weekend because it will lose those screens next weekend to Halloween.

I never understand why people go out to see a biopic anyway. The endings already spoiled, and you can find more interesting stuff about all people and topics online.

No one asked for ryan gosling but Hollywood keeps trying to shove him down our throats.

I want him shoved down my throat.

I just checked Paul Thomas Anderson's filmography and the BOX OFFICE earnings. I suggest you do the same. The numbers were staggeringly low.

A few years ago he was voted greatest living filmmaker.

Sorry, you’re not comparing Damien Chazelle to Paul Thomas Anderson, are you? Don’t be silly.

Bland white people in a movie about a moon landing that we all know was successful. WHO is going to see this??????

Claire Foye IS Concerned first man on the moon team mom.

No I'm saying that PTA's movies don't make any money -- christ compare his BO to his best friend Quentins -- and he's an exceptional filmmaker.

R121 I found LLL trite. From the opening traffic dance scene to the dating and falling in love music montage, it was all so predictable and uninspired. Worst of all was the by-now-expected lack of chemistry between the leads. Hollywood, please cast two people who at least give off the suggestion that they might actually have sex when casting for a couple.

No r114, some of the ideas or subject matters you mentioned, just are not suited for movies. There are tons of books and plays read for mobie adaptations, but excecutives want surefire rehashes that are not done better than the original , but have brand recognition.

R94, For those who don't understand the controversy re the flag planting on the moon, It's NOT about whether or not one is pro-Trump or Far Right Republican at all.

I had a brother-in-law who worked at JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) in So Cal. The entire company at the time was focused on "winning the space war against the Russians" and rah-rah Conservative Republican, with major right wing Republicans visiting to inspire the employees. My brother-in-law was so upset when JPL converted to top in military defense, after the space budget was cut.

Ironic because the #! PURPOSE of landing on the moon, as he later said, was so that the Ruskies can't shoot down armaments from the moon. US HAD to get there 1st. That was the justification at the time of the huge space budget. Liberals at the time were furious at the $$$$ expenditures, considering the even then huge numbers of Americans living in poverty.

Therefore the top priority of landing on the moon, as beamed into everyone's TV set at the time, was PLANTING THE US FLAG and MAKING THE USA #1 to justify the HUGE expense. Miss that point, and "the space race" loses a lot in translation.

Ron Howard's film showed that Americana/US flag,/patriotism aspect with close-ups of the American flag on the actors' spacesuits.

r139, are you sure the movie doesn't address that point? Have you seen it?

[quote]Therefore the top priority of landing on the moon, as beamed into everyone's TV set at the time, was PLANTING THE US FLAG and MAKING THE USA #1 to justify the HUGE expense. Miss that point, and "the space race" loses a lot in translation.

There's a scene at the end where it shows people across the world watching and reacting to the moon landing so it is telegraphed that it wasn't lost on the rest of the world that the U.S got there first.

He seems likable but is really kind of monotonous as an actor. But I am vastly unimpressed with this generation of film actors. They all are vanilla lightweights.

R140, No I haven't seen it. No real desire to do so either. Yes, I'm insulted they left out the planting of the US flag on the moon which previous posters don't get was the most dramatic, rah-rah TV moment of the entire year and more. Shut down all of the "deplorables" at the time who said that man doesn't belong in space as it was against God's Plan. I am not kidding, either.

The moon landing footage was faked by Stanley Kubrick.

He is the least likely actor to have trouble at the box office moving forward I mostly watch foreign movies. I have to read the subtitles but it becomes second nature. IMHO way better cinema.

Why is it even a controversy when it clearly was faked?

Has Ryan played a gay character before?

R137 Worst of all was the by-now-expected lack of chemistry between the leads

yes no chemistry between closet case Stone and closet case Gosling

Stone dated Andrew Gayfield and there's her ex who transitioned and now is a female! and bearded for Maniston's ex merkin Theroux

[quote]there's her ex who transitioned and now is a female!

Teddy's more feminine than Stone.

R150 and prettier

Gosling is a dreary actor, had had too much smoke blown up his ass and cannot open a film

Allegedly - only 12 Americans have walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972. Does anyone believe any of that was real?

I want to see the grainy footage of the blow job action in the lunar module. That thing was small.

His eyes are so close together.

r139 / r143, I can't tell if you're mad the movie didn't make the points you wanted made, that it was bad nationalism (r139) or good to nationalism shut down the religious nuts (r143), or if you would've seen that movie or just don't want to see this movie. Either way, I doubt that's the real reason people are staying away.

Other good reasons have been given. It looks boring. Gosling is boring. They can see it on TV (and likely will, etc.).

We never really put men on the moon so that may be why it is a hard sell.

Gosling did a pretty solid job. the family angle got a bit hammy and overplayed but guess it was necessary to make it seem more "emotional" I guess. great visuals and thought it was executed nicely...it was good.

R144 Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake the moon landing, but his perfectionism made them film it on location on the moon.

Why would I go to the movies for this when I can watch The First on Hulu

I just googled The First and Sean Penn is in it #puke

he's best co-billed with an actress ala Lala land and The notebook .

Sean Penn must be the ugliest actor ever and not a good actor and a desperate pathetic closet case who married Robin Dyke and Lesbian Madonna to hide his homosexuality and dated some other closet cases too

so he's gay or he's in denial?

madonna and robin are lesbians???

R105 and R111. great posts.

So, is Claire Foye going to be cast in everything for the next two, three years until everyone realizes that she doesn't have "it"?

R164 Penn is gay and the answer to the second question is yes

We never went to the moon. Young NASA scientists dream of it because it never happened in 1969-1972. Anyone who believes that myth - that only Americanscould go to the moon - does not understand science.

Wow, there are truly some fucking idiots posting on this thread.

If it was easy to put a man on the moon, it would have happened since. NASA under Nixon lied to the American public. The footage has always been fake and NASA claims the "technology" to do it was destroyed, which is another lie.

I'm refuse to see him in anything else until his eyes finally finish their migration to the center of his face and merge into one.

[quote]If it was easy to put a man on the moon, it would have happened since. NASA under Nixon lied to the American public. The footage has always been fake and NASA claims the "technology" to do it was destroyed, which is another lie.

Kanye, shouldn't you be on a conference call with Trump and Candace Owen?

I see the trolls have scampered onto this thread.

r171, he's right. NASA admits we don't have the tech to protect mammals from the Van Allen Belt. It was all part of a Cold War fear campaign against Russia.

I think sticking that flag on the Moon was tacky.

We are quickly becoming Idiocracy; do this many people really believe we never went to the moon?

Good God.

[quote]I'm refuse to see him in anything else until his eyes finally finish their migration to the center of his face and merge into one.

I think he's relatively good lucking but in the film it seemed as if his face slid downwards. It's like he has Marfans.

The Moon is a CONSPIRACY!!

If you want to believe in fairytales, be my guest. Ask any competent scientist today whether we have the technology to send a man to the moon and they will say no.

**good looking.

r175, NASA says we can't go to the Moon. You think you know better than NASA?

LOL!!! Good lucking! I don't care if that was a typo I love it!

Don Pettit, NASA Astronaut, "I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

Yep. WTF is he talking about? You can't "destroy" technology. It's the myth from the past that NASA has to work around. They only talk about sends robotics into space now.

Lukas Haas is in this. At least I won’t have to support his ass for awhile.

How did Lukas get a role in the first place? Is Leo a producer or something?

[quote]How did Lukas get a role in the first place? Is Leo a producer or something?

Surprisingly, no. And Lukas is in "Widows" which comes out next month. Maybe Leo told him he had to finally pull his own weight.

I *think* NASA claims each Apollo mission had to be stress-tested, refined, specially built, redone, etc. by teams or manufacturers that no longer exist. So they have all the plans, etc,, it would just be "painful" to try and recreate each mission. I am dubious though because no one has since 1962 has been able to go to the moon, or even tried to send a man to the moon. And if they actually succeeded, they could have worked with Boeing etc. to refine the process. I do agree that science has not yet evolved to know how to send humans out of earth's lower orbit without killing them. It's disingenuous for NASA to say that tech was "destroyed" but humans are extremely gullible. There are moon landing set mock ups that NASA used before the launches.

No one since 1972

R58, I saw the film earlier today, and I agree with you about the family angle, although I will admit getting a bit teary at the bracelet scene (I know, MARY!)

I think the pacing of the film was incredibly slow, although the launch sequences were very well done, with a lot of built up tension. I kept comparing the film to "The Right Stuff", one of my all time favorites, so I'm sure that's why I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would.

That should be R158, not R58.

[R189] I did too with the bracelet scene *no shame*. it did lag a bit but also piqued my interest into the whole mission/crews/landing/NASA...etc. loved the succinct ending

Even if NASA lied, they have been good stories for propaganda and movies.

Blade runner 2049 was a masterpiece but any other semi talented actor could've filled his role in it.

American infants need to see their flag "planted FIRMLY on the moon"! It MUST be shown, or it didn't happen.

No. We didn't go to the moon.

I never thought of it as going to be "huge". The Right Stuff when it came out didn't do so well. Add into that with Venom and A Star is Born opening big, just took away from it's opening weekend.

The movie is 2 hours, 21 minutes, plus critics liked it more than audiences who gave it a B.

LOL at NASA saying they destroyed the technology. They forget to mention a Russian astronaut was killed trying to fly through the Van Allen Belts. But somehow Americans figured this out in 1969 but then cannot do it now. Sure Jan

The Soviets gave up on the dream to go to the moon when they sent a dog up to the Van Allen belts in the late 50s. The race to the moon was media propaganda.

Which is why when Russia decided to attack us, they used fake news. They know that Americans are gullible as fuck. Show us anything, tell us anything, and we'll believe it. They're not wrong.

His mouth annoys the fuck out of me!

First you stumble, then you fall, you reach out and you fly,,,.there isn't anything, that you can't do.

[quote]Capitalize the names of planets (e.g., “Earth,” “Mars,” “Jupiter”). [bold]Capitalize “Moon” when referring to Earth’s Moon; otherwise, lowercase “moon” (e.g., “The Moon orbits Earth,” “Jupiter’s moons”).[/bold] Capitalize “Sun” when referring to our Sun but not to other suns. Do not capitalize “solar system” and “universe.” Another note on usage: “Earth,” when used as the name of the planet, is not preceded by “the”; you would not say “the Neptune” or “the Venus.” When “earth” is lowercased, it refers to soil or the ground, not the planet as a whole. Do use “the” in front of “Sun” and “Moon” as applicable. See the list below for capitalization of words containing “sun” and “moon.”

More to OPs point, is this a bomb and has Gosling really failed again?

I mean, he's had some big hits no?

Did he try singing and dancing in this turkey too? No wonder it flopped.

[quote]I mean, he's had some big hits no?

No.

He was never really been box office gold. Few of them are, actually none really are. Early in his career he was the 'it' actor on the indie scene. His hits like The Notebook, Crazy, Stupid, Love and La La Land were more about the material than him. They do try to hype him like he's someone major, but he never has been able to open a film on his name. Again, none of them can anymore except maybe Leonardo DiCaprio.

Streep, Hanks and Cruise can still open a movie. With Ryan, they tried and he failed.

Flop Man

1. Nicole Flopman

2 First Man

[quote]I mean, he's had some big hits no?

Yes. DRIVE was a hit. It cost $15 million to make and it made $78 million worldwide.

[italic]Drive was nominated for four British Academy Film Awards, which included Best Film, Best Direction, Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Carey Mulligan), and Best Editing. It was one of the most-nominated films by critics' groups in 2011.[99][100] Albert Brooks had the most critics' groups nominations.[100][101] Nicholas Refn won the Best Director Award at the 64th Cannes Film Festival.[102] The film also received an Academy Award nomination for Best Sound Editing.[103] [/italic]

Neither Stone nor Gosling have been able to successfully lead a film on their own. Jennifer Lawrence was hoped to but now she is currently out of work because no one will pay her $15m fee.

And I feel bad for the dogs Russia sent into space. Isn't it common knowledge that the moon landings of 1969-72 were faked?

r209, it is widely speculated upon, but the official stance is 'the Moon landings were real' in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Mostly, though not entirely, it is older people who were alive during those 'moon landings' who refuse to consider or acquaint themselves with the overwhelming evidence that it was all a big con. It ties into their hero-worship of martyred JFK, etc. Not surprisingly, these people also believe that Oswald was not only the shooter but that he acted alone -- again, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Their generational arrogance will not allow them to admit that they were suckers and bought a lie and had their entire perspective on reality built upon fraud.

Why the fuck would they cast a Canadian. Im sick of all these foreigners taking our roles.

The story from NASA was that the Apollo missions “flew around” the radiation and it was only low doses for a couple of hours, equivalent to a couple of CT’s. But this has never been replicated or adequately explained, and it’s a stretch to think they were more sophisticated about space travel in 1969 than today. Today, scientists talk about how they need to figure out first how to get through the Van Allen belts before we can even do space travel.

PS, a lot of the Apollo footage shown on TV were simulations developed by NASA, but the public believed it was real.

in both flix he acted like he was on downers

wtf wrong wid him

he sorry actor at best, but gawd he sleep walked thru both

is he ill???

He seems like a stoned little man with a tiny weiner.

gosling is very upset he has no hits

he is adrift

will get desparate and try sumthing wild now...

Re. R110 and Viggo Mortensen finally getting Academy recognition when so far, Cooper and Gosling may or may not be nommed this upcoming Awards season does he have any guaranteed Oscarbait offing?

You prompted me to check imdb R110- I agree and would like him to sneak in finally.

The Green Book role looks promising and seems Oscar worthy material. Is it? Perhaps his participation is Supporting only / he doesn't seem to have anything else upcoming timed for Consideration unfortunately.

Just saw this at Archlight Hollywood .... such a bland flick. And not memorable in any way whatsoever. Claire Foy ??? Zero across the board, except for the one million gross freckles on her arms that we were forced to see every scene.

But I digress ....

God am i sick of Ryan fucking Gosling ... his face, his pointy nose, his chin, his beady weasel voice (no longer from Queens anymore), but above all his sublime mediocrity as an actor.

Another thing that hurt me was the truly exceptional actor Giovanni Ribisi was sitting a few rows away from me and the entire time I kept thinking how much better the movie would have been had he been given the lead role instead of Gaysling.

Saw it today. It's very taaaalky. Arid and claustrophobic. I don't know much about Armstrong, but Gosling portrays him with the charm of Jeffrey Dahmer.

There's about 10 min. of moon walk footage at the end.

Which never happened in reality. The myth of the Apollo missions is that these aluminum tin cans with primitive computers not only made it out of earth's orbit, they went all the way to the moon, sent a separate ship that landed on the moon, filmed it, picked up some rocks, then the tiny ship reconnected with the orbiting ship, and then they came all the way back to earth. Silly tin cans from 1969!

Putin wants to annex the moon next.

The more one thinks about it, the more absurd it sounds.

I really liked the movie Half Nelson when I saw it. Not sure if it stands the test of time. Gosling is a teacher and a drug addict. I think he'll always be around because he takes risks in his choices. I don't just believe something happened or didn't happen based on a conspiracy suggestion. Facts boys? Oh that's right Trump did away with facts and that's why no one knows what's real or isn't.

sick of him!!!

has the acting range of an orange.

I don't agree with those who say that Ryan Gosling isn't leading man material it's just that he cannot easily be pigeonholed by genre of film or character. The perfect leading man in LA LA Land.

he is repulsive and vanilla must be hung no other excuse for his 'careeer'

R218 Agree on your post except the part about Foy I haven't seen Flop Man but she's great in the other film/TV series roles.

Reese Witherspoon + Kristen Stewart => Claire Foy

I don’t care what anyone says. Ryan can stumble until his asshole falls down straight into my tongue!

He wouldn't be flattered R229. Hates gay flirtation.

[quote] I don't just believe something happened or didn't happen based on a conspiracy suggestion.

What does that even mean?

Not the poster but he's not buying your conspiracy to fake the moonlanding bullshit.

Thank you, captain asshole, but it's not my conspiracy. You heard the astronaut in the video, yourself. I didn't make that up. If I was going to make something up, it'd sound a lot more plausible than "we destroyed the technology".

Yes, R233, you are making nonsense up by "interpreting" a video in your asshat way, Admiral Shitstain. But keep derailing this thread by all the nuttiness under your tin hat. Too stupid to live.

Even if you're not Ryan or his agents trying to distract from the discussion of his talents (or lack thereof).

The moon landings were a hoax. They just orbited around earth and then played videos for the public. Ask any scientist whether we can go to the moon and they will say no. I know people get defensive because of what they saw on TV in 1969-72, but ask yourself - why has no one been able to send a man to the moon since 1972? Because it never happened.

r234, and how do you "interpret" a NASA astronaut claiming that we "destroyed the technology" necessary to go to the Moon so we can't go there anymore? What's your 'smart' way of interpreting that statement? Surely, Shirley, you don't believe him.

They destroyed the technology so the Russians don't get their hands on them. What is so hard to understand about that?

People are forgetting the moon “landings” were propaganda during the Vietnam War. Once Nixon was out, they slashed NASA’s budget. You can’t destroy technology, and frankly, the Russians knew that it was a hoax. They had no interest in trying to send a man to the moon when it was futile and impossible, even for Americans.

r237, that's a more ridiculous suggestion than tin cans with no radiation shielding making it through the Van Allen Belts twice with unharmed humans inside.

Geez, the fucking loons have taken over this thread. If they're the same ones hating on Ryan Gosling, he has nothing to worry about. These people must never leave their fucking homes.

That’s always what people do when confronted with science. I guess you think Trump will build a wall too.

Idiocracy isn't coming.

It's here.

This thread is proof of it.

So why did they destroy the technology? What was the reason?

Oh my, this thread has certainly taken a turn.

They didn’t destroy the technology. It’s just too expensive for NASA to replicate the Apollo missions (assuming they happened).

I wonder how they destroyed the technology. Did they burn the blueprints in a bonfire? 🔥

Just saying, when you claim the technology was “destroyed” then maybe they never went and never have to prove it. A few pictures of primitive “dune buggies” on the moon are not persuasive.

The dreaded Van Allen Belts were conquered by engineering and scientific know how that is NOT lost. It was rather straight forward application of avoidance. You crack pots are hilarious.

I believe the moon landings were fake. But can someone to tell me how they were able to convince nearly 400,000 to keep with the charade. Wouldnt have to have been a shit load of people involved. Is this where mind control comes in.

God you conspiracy nutters are lazy morons. Go spend a few minutes on FUCKING WIKIPEDIA and you'll get the answers to your lame ass 'gotcha' questions.

But I expect y'all double down on your pet theories when confronted on the facts because that's nutters do.

Yep, them fly boys from 1969 just flew around that pesky radiation. We can’t do it now but they could!

The flew through the first belt in a few minutes and the second in an hour, limiting their amount of exposure, which you'd know R251, if you actually took the time to read up on the subject instead of stupidly repeating your talking points like a fucking moron.

That only makes sense if you believe NASA under Nixon. Sorry, but I'll go with modern scientists who say we are not there yet. I know this a tough myth for boomers to let go of and admit they were conned.

It must really burn R253 that there are people out there that did something significant with their lives and contributed towards humanity's advancement in magnificent fashion and knowing that they are not smart enough to ever do a fraction of what NASA achieved.

All this moon landing denialism shows how many trolls we have lurking on DL these days.

Putin has truly weaponised the internet.

Why are you even arguing with these trolls? They're only trying to get under your skin with their nonsense.

Just ignore.

r254 so how do you think they "destroyed" all that Moon Landing Technology?

And why?

Like you said going to the Moon is a magnificent human accomplishment so it seems *unlikely* that an organization that exists entirely for the purpose of exploring space would somehow "destroy" all of the "technology" they created to enable their crowning achievement.

In fact, it actually seems *impossible* that NASA could have somehow [bold]destroyed the technology[/bold] given that anyone can find blueprints to the spaceships that supposedly went to the Moon in a quick google search.

So, if this "technology" that allowed space travel, which we can no longer perform, was "destroyed" and it wasn't the in the ships (blueprints available) and it wasn't in the suits (in glass cases on display), what on earth was destroyed?

Nice to see propaganda police here to try to steer the conversation away from the facts. Don't listen to that astronaut! He's a conspiracy theorist! As is everyone who doesn't believe what you saw on TV was real!

r245, Don Pettit, NASA astronaut, in a documentary interview that took place at NASA and wherein he was acting as a spokesperson for the organization, stated that they "destroyed the technology" that enabled them to go to the Moon. You think he's lying?

Either you're an idiot who refuses to go read the wikipedia article I linked, R257 & R258 or you're Russian Trolls who don't understand English and what "destroyed the technology" means - in which case: FUCK OFF BORIS & NATASHA.

Wikipedia is not science. The "we destroyed the technology" statement is bullshit.

First Man? Ryan Gosling?

This thread has not only gone off the rails, it's careened off the planet and out into space heading for the moon.

Hey Boris, do you deny the space accomplishments of your own Mother country? Or are you getting enough rubles to sell out your own culture? SHAME on you.

Maybe that's why the movie is failing. People including NASA staff question whether we ever went to the moon! Even if we assume the "technology" was destroyed, what was the point? To spend over a billion and say we were #1 but no one will ever be able to do it again? It's actually more plausible that we never went and the destroyed talk was to stop any further questions or need to back it up. What is the evidence that it even happened? TV footage, photos and moon rocks?

r263 all the so-called "moon rocks" have turned out to be fake.

Ok, R263 & R264 you're starting to worry me now. Was Sandy Hook or 9/11 fake too?

Show me where on the doll the moon landing hurt you.

No one is talking about those events. Stop deflecting. Take your time to explain why the moon landing technology was destroyed and what evidence actually exists to prove that we ever went to the moon almost 50 years ago.

Prove the tech was destroyed. Go on. Prove it.

LOL, R266, do you believe the Earth is flat as well?

Of course not. Apparently you believe the moon landings were real because you saw them on TV. And it was a NASA scientist who said the technology was destroyed, not me.

Buuuut you think Sandy Hook 9/11 are fake. Okay then. How about Global Warming - is that a giant conspiracy?

You are the only person bringing up other events. It's okay, I know you can't explain.

[quote]And it was a NASA scientist who said the technology was destroyed, not me.

Lol. So why do you believe him, this one, lone “NASA scientist” whom you can’t even name over the thousands of other scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and other NASA staff members who say otherwise? Do YOU believe everything YOU hear?

r272, Don Pettit made the statement that they had "destroyed the technology" they created to go to the Moon in a documentary, filmed at NASA and appearing as an official spokesperson for the organization.

None of us believe they "destroyed the technology". But, that is apparently the officially sanctioned word on the matter from NASA. If they'd had a problem with anything he'd said, the footage would not have been allowed to be included in the doc.

The real question is: why would NASA put worth such a ridiculous explanation for their inability to return to the Moon?

Another good question is: why would you disbelieve Pettit but believe the astronauts who "brought back" fake Moon rocks in 69-72? Is an astronaut only trustworthy when they agree with the story you want to believe? Does NASA have a policy of making public lies, but you have secret special inside information that the Moon landings were real, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I feel sorry for those Russians when don't even believe they helped get men on the Moon. Really sad they are denying their own great legacy. What are you good for? Trolling en masse. Who will remember you, or care about you in a few decades?

These trolls are hilarious. The point of what we were doing back then was EXPLORATION.

The trolls don't mention things like Apollo 8 (does anyone remember what everyone was afraid was going to happen?) or the HUGE economic turmoil we were in the early 70s, which led to huge cuts in NASA's budgets, so they scaled down to space shuttle flights (were those fake too?). What about the guys and gals up in the space station? Are they faking it too??

But I have to admit this is a clever diversion to the topic at hand: just how bad the movie is doing. Mr. Gosling should start looking for tv shows to star in.

r275 who are you calling a troll? Don Pettit? Why would NASA destroy the pinnacle of human achievement and their entire purpose for existing? You're the troll.

So, back on topic, I just saw First Man. The space scenes were great, well worth seeing in the theatre. The family drama scenes were a bit hit-and-miss. Gosling was good, but I don't think the role demanded too much of him. Deplorables should rest easy: there were flags everywhere and it was made very clear that it was an American achievement.

Foy was very good in the creepy "Unsane" about a woman who can't get out of a psychiatric facility.

Moon landings never happened. Why the hell have we not been back in 40 years or any other country for that matter. Why the fuck would a flag be blowing in a non gravity space. Fuck outta here.

Released WAY too early if Oscar bait. Wonder who made that decision? October is usually graveyard shift before the awards movies bombard us.

(P.S. "The Right Stuff" infamously tanked years ago too so maybe astronauts are box office poison. Though I guess "Gravity" defies that).

Plenty of Oscar bait movies open in October, including Gravity and The Martian.

All of Spike Lee's movies tank.

r279, you dumbass, it's not blowing. Gravity is different in space (learn about microgravity please). See what happens to cloth and even water in space? It floats. Now try to imagine what would happen if it were tethered to a pole. It's not going to drop like a flag in no wind because the gravity will not pull it down. If you need a visual, see the cloth in the video. It's not blowing. It's floating.

god the fine movies he has ruined with his boring delivery

STOP IT

I will never understand it but I just don't like looking at him. Never have, even when he was a kid.

The flag is not floating. It’s propped up by a curtain rod along the top. And if old grainy video is the only evidence, God help us.

40% drop expected second weekend, will cume just over $30mm. Should gross $50mm in the end.

so many good roles wasted on this dog face..

The whole film screams "what are we going to do to get an award" in an old, tired, Hollywood sense. What's the point?

"Foreigners being all over American stories is a big reason why I keep my money in my pocket. And I'm as liberal and progressive as it gets. "

No, you're not. Not even close. Why do you pretend?

" you have secret special inside information that the Moon landings were real, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?"

Flat earther?

You think NASA's astronauts believe the world is flat?

[quote]Putin has truly weaponised the internet.

People doubted the moon landing long before Putin.

The van Allen belts were only discovered 10 years before the moon landings. Only 5 years ago 2 probes were sent up there to collect actual data of the belts and about three years ago scientists discovered that there was a third belt that occasionally forms around our planet instead of just two.

The Chinese have flown around the Moon. The Japanese have landed a probe on an asteroid. A global venture has got robots on Mars. I think the Russians may have sent a probe to Venus or Mercury. Every planet has had at least a fly-by. The International Space Station has had astronauts coming and going for years, all nationalities. Believe it or not, who cares.

No one has been able to provide proof we put people on the moon 50 years ago with primitive computers. The technology was destroyed is a joke. Why has no other country even tried to replicate it? Because it never happened.

Please FF the stupid Russian troll.

Damian Chazzelle is a grossly overrated director the powers that be are trying to turn into a major star director.

This movie was bland and Gosling's face is nigh on unwatchable in the close ups. Bad face, bad haircut, and the worst voice in the history of leading men.

There is no Russian troll. There is no evidence that the moon landings were real. No one at NASA today will vouch for them.

Damian should've turned it into "ARMSTRONG: THE MUSICAL".

Gozzling looks like this old guy

R300 He looks okay, natural, hunky, and masculine.

R301 Gosling looks masculine ! ? ! ? !

Only after million dollar surgery and years in a gym. He looked like a dweeb.

And I heard the director in an interview say this new space movie was all about "Grief". The astronaut had a death in his family and was going to space to explore his personal grief. It was a 'Dark Movie',he said.

There would be no Flag-Waving or Patriotism or Triumphalism in his movie, he said.

masculine my ass Gosling is a as masculine as closet case tiny wiener steroid body Brad Pigg

I'm curious Boris, what is it about this movie that upsets you so? Is it the knowledge that the Americans kicked soviet butt?

Sylvester Stallone thinks Ryan Gosling should play Rambo in the inevitable reboot

r298 it is delicious how wrong you can be.

NASA formally celebrates the moon landing.

And a representative for NASA not only claiming in September 2018 not only that we went but that we're going back.

Hardly "no one" at NASA refusing to support it.

And shocker of shockers, which network has been one of the most recent modern proponents of the "moon landing" is "fake news" theory? That's right. Fox News.

do they make $ off his flops?

they must know by now that's all he makes....

odd

r309 this will go on for a while. Hollywood loves to keep casting a "name". The marketing people see that he has a huge internet following, they push him on the internet, point to the Notebook and La La Land and his Oscar noms and say he's a better bet than say, Armie Hammer or Chris Pine, who could just have easily been dropped into these roles. And Pine would've drawn in the sci-fi crowd.

Chazelle sees himself as an artiste and is clearly the critics' darling. Chazelle worked with Gosling and wanted him, because Gosling sees himself as an intellectual and artiste (see his foray into directing with the disastrous Lost River) and would in a mutual masturbatory way, claim to get Chazelle's vision. Thus we get this "chic" retelling of yet another space story, Hollywood crunching the numbers, their marketing people breaking it down and backing up their projections, and so on.

Right now, they're saying, wait until Oscar season, explaining away the low early numbers, and will continue to say that this wasn't a bad choice even if no Oscar noms come in, more marketing money is poured into it, and so on. That's how Hollywood works. Gyllenhaal gets one project after another for the same reason, though he pushes himself a lot more as an actor.

Gosling will be 40 in 2020. Let's see if he doesn't meet the fate of lots who eventually fade away.

Pine would not have bought in any sci fi crowd either or the Star Trek film would have done better and they would be moving forward with production on a new one which was halted. Pine has a bunch of big budget flops too from that Coast Guard rescue movie, to rebooting the Jack Ryan franchise and recently, A Wrinkle in Time, only because alot of the marketing centered around him until they switched to girl power mode to push the movie. He lucky can ride off of Wonder Woman to stay afloat.

I don't dislike Gosling, but he is way overrated as an actor and obviously his internet chatter is just that, chatter. They have been hyping up this movie for the last year and a half and there is no way they are happy with these results.

Sure Jan. We went 50 years ago but we can’t go again until 2030. Still waiting for your evidence - whoopsie, it was all destroyed.

First Man down 46%, below Goosebumps 2.

Forgot the link

Wow. First Man is a major flop.

Thank you r295.

I skipped LaLaLand, but I am interested in this one. If for no other reason than to see what went wrong with the film.

His blade runner was one of the worst movie I've ever watched. So fucking boring and a waste of time!

Are people still interested in the space program?

Not really. People don't see the value of spending billions for very little gain. It may become fashionable again if the planet becomes uninhabitable, or if King Dump wants an ego prize. The moon landings were primarily decorative for TV - they did not focus on building on the work or apparently even maintaining it. People also forget that the idea that you could beam live footage from the moon with 1968 computers or cameras is a joke. It's a real leap of faith.

I hate Russia and realize America is the greatest country ever. The moon landings never fkin happened. Were not all trolls.

But you are illiterate, R321!

R322, you ever wonder why you haven't been laid in centuries. Sit the fuck down grammar nazi.

R323, the fact that you trolls have taken over this thread with your conspiracy bullshit makes you a million times worse than any "grammar nazi". Go to 4chan with this nonsense. You can't be reasoned with. You just want spread you lunacy wherever you can. This is a gay message board and a celebrity one, not a conspiracy, truther board. Get out and get help.

More later but this film is excellent. Saw it yesterday. What a surprise. But it’s not Apollo 13. It’s a film about grief and death.

BUMP!

R325, you made the film sound good, but super depressing as well!

Sounds depressing. No thank you. why would I pay 20 bucks to make myself feel sad?

It wasn’t sad. It was a profoundly moving.

I think people are shocked it's such a flop.

I also don't believe the moon landings were real. It seems like a fantasy for old people that has never been replicated.

At TIFF, they played this EVERY DAY. You know they were hoping to win the People's Choice Award, but Green Book swooped in and surprised everybody by winning. Even If Beale Street Could Talk came in second, and it is not getting the same buzz as Barry Jenkins' previous movie, Moonlight.

First Man did sell out each screening at TIFF but it obviously didn't win over audiences as much as the producers were hoping it would.

I was a naysayer earlier in this thread, but I saw the movie tonight and was surprised by how much I liked it (I still am not a Gosling fan....just about anyone could've played the part). There were people there with their kids; I thought this was a great idea so they could see what it was like back then when they went up to the moon in what we'd now think were tin cans.

I was a little kid when the Gemini and Apollo missions were on and we discussed every mission endlessly at school. We all wanted to become astronauts. I have kept my interest in this and have read a lot about these missions. I think the movie does a good job showing and explaining what was at stake and how dangerous it all was. There were a couple of scenes that, even though I knew the outcome, I was still hanging onto my seat.

The only thing that bugged me was nearly everyone in the movie said "Gemi-nee" whereas we always pronounced it, "Gemin-eye." I believe Walter Cronkite (who we all believed knew everything and was always right) pronounced it that way too. I don't know if that's a regional pronunciation, or if we've been saying it wrong all of these years.

Lowering expectations will do that, R332. It's a process good for most films. Hype is never a good thing. I thought Blade Runner 2049 was great, probably for the same reason.

No, the problem with this film is that people think it’s going to be like Apollo 13. It’s not. It’s an art film, almost closer to The Tree of Life than Apollo 13. The Right Stuff struggled to find an audience too but it’s still a great film.

Foy deserves an Oscar nomination for her performance in this film

how does this turd face flop maker continue to get work???

mus sliing a mean penis.

Ryan is popular in Hollywood but he - like Jennifer Lawrence - have struggled to really be A-Listers. Bradley Cooper is also popular and gay closeted, but he has proven himself. Chris Pratt maybe, they are so uninteresting this young crop,

Maybe they could not pronounce Gemini because they are foreign. But where is the research? I am endlessly fascinated by people's belief in this myth.

He is nothing special, I won't pay a cent to see him in a lead role. I will just wait for cable. His eyes are too close together

Cant the damn dog face bozo just go away ?????

Am a space race enthusiast, but this film was a bore. Super tedious.

Armstrong came across as a total douchbag. Gosling didn't even seem to be trying to give him any sort of inner life. And the ultimate sin? I didn't care one bit about the character or whether they even made it to the moon.

Agreed on the tedium, even without the fact that I despise Gosling as an actor.

So what is the consensus on the movie? Did it flop? Will it get any award buzz?

Has this hit Gosling's rep or is he still golden?

I saw it last night although expecting more but I liked it. Claire and Ryan gave award worth performances Neil Armstrong wasn’t very like able. I was expecting to be dazzled by Damien who I think will be one of the great directors in the future then I saw a warning sign. Executive produced by Steven Spielberg’. Who has ruined the career of more than one promising director. Take Robert Zemeckis early he did a short brilliant mean-spirited Christmas film then after associating with SS never did anything like it again. He made a couple great films but he could have done Hit chock type films but he went the warm and fuzzy route with happy endings.

Gosaling strong points are his charm and sex appeal which isn’t on display here. Is Neil Armstrong so stoic in real life ? I don’t know what kind a hairstyle his wife had in real life but I kept thinking why does that beautiful woman have such ugly hair ? A lot of the visuals are the view points of the astronauts and not very compelling and the moon looks like an ugly white beach. I guess they were going for realism. Still I like the film but I suspect it will not be remembered well. Also you can say Damien has made three good films you can’t say the same for most directors.

You old coots have a nerve being so picky. I'd happily fuck Gosling. Though, I liked his young, unrefined, un-handsomefied face better.

Previous films about the space race -- The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Hidden Figures -- at least built some suspense. Even though I knew the outcome of each film going in, I still was on the edge of my seat during portions because of expert direction, good acting and a strong script.

With First Man, I had no sense of suspense. Didn't care about the characters or whether they achieved their quest. I knew Armstrong would walk on the moon. I just wanted them to depict that scene so the movie would be over and I could leave the theater.

Wow, so First Man drops to number 11. Budget $59 million, gross so far $42 million. Lost 1217 screens the past week. It may slowly make it's budget back and will do fine (somewhat) depending on awards buzz.

In contrast, Bohemian Rhapsody's budget was $52 million and made $50 millon this week. Number one at the box office.

Wow, watching the Nice Guys and just realised that little Aussie Angourie Rice does a great American accident. She out-acts Ryan, what a surprise, though he is funny.

American accident? LOL

I do a very good Canadian accident, want to hear it?

Clever, R348. She doesn't sound like an Aussie or a "Canadian". She fits into the film well and her accent is not noticeable.

Oh lord I despise Ryan Gosling as an actor.

He ruined Ides of March which could have been a supreme movie with an otherworldly cast and gorgeous script.

The script was weak but the technical effects were amazing. They should have hired an A list screen doctor but the Director probably had veto power. The mistake Hollywood often makes is assuming that A list means you can do everything well.

Here's the real deal review - the movie is awful. If you're looking for a natural sleep remedy, then this is it. I thought I would get some insight into the experience of the actual trip to the moon, but instead this movie left me wondering if any of this was actually taken from any firsthand accounts of any astronaut, at all. The movie & acting - extremely boring.

Ryan Gosling will sell tickets if he shows.

hard body hard body hard body hard body hard body hard body hard body hard body hard body

ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass ripe white ass

and

bulge and cock and budge and cock and bulge and cock

R264 we found a piece of petrified wood like that in our garden when I was a kid.

I figured that it was always put on, but he has absolutely ZERO personality and charisma now. Fatherhood has made him utterly dull. He was on the cover of GQ for this movie and there was an article with him and Chazelle. I got 1/4 way through before I stopped reading. He used to have a flirtatious charm circa 2011, right? That's completely gone now. He's started to noticeably age in the face now too.

Poor Claire Foy snubbed :(

One of the most unattractive actors ever.

No one wanted to see that space movie, no one. At least he got paid. He needs to be a bad boy...not a goddamn astronaut.

r355, agreed. Gosling was also a heavy cigarette smoker until a couple of years ago, which hasn't helped. Some say he hasn't stopped. He also drinks a lot and smokes pot. None of that's going to keep him young.

r54 the missing Flag scene worked because this movie was an absolute bore. I watched it on a flight and only stuck through because a guy I liked was excited to see it before it came out, I thought it would be a good conversation piece when I retuned home. I was wrong. Terrible movie. Neil is a great guy but a complete bore. Ryan's acting doesn't help. I'm glad they cut the flag scene because it helped us get to the end a lot faster.

I was flying on a asian airline that had limited Hollywood movies, so believe it or not this was the third best option out of the 10 on their crappy On Demand.

Maybe he and Glenn Close can team up for something, as they're both slipping?

#2For1