# Hidden Figures **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 8, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625 "2017-01-08T15:30:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/101 "2017-10-06T04:51:29Z")
Stated with no evidence. Racism and ageism noted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/102 "2017-10-06T11:45:13Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Stated with no evidence. Racism and ageism noted. It’s a movie. Such evaluations require subjective opinion. It’d be surprising if someone close to LBJ didn’t disagree with the movie since it didn’t portray him as an angel. I think that LBJ was a lion in domestic policy. But he was still a politician, and portraying him as a politician with political concerns isn’t slander, no matter how many old white men complain. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/103 "2017-10-06T15:18:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s a movie. Such evaluations require subjective opinion. It’d be surprising if someone close to LBJ didn’t disagree with the movie since it didn’t portray him as an angel. > > I think that LBJ was a lion in domestic policy. But he was still a politician, and portraying him as a politician with political concerns isn’t slander, no matter how many old white men complain. That ‘old’ white man’ has documentation. You have nothing but pure supposition. I forget, which is more reliable? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/104 "2017-10-06T17:57:53Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > That ‘old’ white man’ has documentation. You have nothing but pure supposition. > > I forget, which is more reliable? ^^ This X 1000. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/105 "2017-10-06T18:35:56Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > That ‘old’ white man’ has documentation. You have nothing but pure supposition. > > I forget, which is more reliable? Assuming it’s first-hand documentation for every interaction and event that took place in Selma, then the documentation. Do you have a cite that such documentation exists and contradicts his portrayal in Selma? It’d be an amazing coup of history if it turns out that LBJ wasn’t, in fact, a politician who acted with political concerns sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/106 "2017-10-06T19:27:54Z")
In my reading and understanding, Hidden Figures and Selma are as accurate or more as most quality historical movies. Like all movies, they’ve made some changes to serve the narrative and the movie, and that’s okay. It’s absolutely entirely expected that movies about black historical figures will focus on the achievements and challenges of these black historical figures. And it’s absolutely entirely expected that some people would complain that white characters may not have been portrayed with perfect historical accuracy. Just as it’s absolutely expected that in so many past historical movies, black historical figures and contributors were glossed over or even left out. Yawn. These were great movies, in my opinion, and in accuracy, as good or better than most other great historical movies. The philosophy on them was “let’s make a great movie about these oft-ignored or misunderstood black people and black achievements, and let’s focus on making the black characters and achievements clear and admirable, and let’s maneuver the story and other characters around portraying those black characters and achievements in the best and most true-to-history way possible within a good movie framework”. And that’s absolutely fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/107 "2017-10-06T21:20:11Z")
I just watched this movie, and found it excellent on several levels. Was artistic license taken? Of course — artistic license is almost necessary in any movie of this type. “Truth” does not require fastidious attention to every detail. The restrooms were desegregated in the 1950’s instead of the 1960’s? Is this supposed to be a huge deal?? (The movie gave me the impression Katherine started at NASA in the early 1960’s — in fact she was already working at NACA in the early 1950’s.) > [@SlackerInc](#): > > So you’re fine with slandering a specific group of people for a “broader truth”? … > > This same complaint, BTW, goes for the movie _Selma_, which also portrayed nearly all whites in the movie as villains, [most notably slandering Lyndon Johnson](http://time.com/3658593/selma-lbj-history/), IMO one of our greatest presidents… Except for the (unknown) person who set up the Colored coffee pot there isn’t a lot of overt racism in the film — much of the prejudice is (at least ostensibly) directed against women rather than blacks. And some privileged white man found _Selma_ unfair to LBJ? [Others would disagree.](https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/selma-fair-l-b-j) I’m willing to call that matter controversial, though I realize some would keep Googling until they found a hit that supported their “Today’s Whites are so mistreated” agenda. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Because who is going to speak for the white men? Will no one ever portray them as decent people? Indeed. White men are so mistreated in today’s America it’s surprising more don’t paint their skin black so they can get treated better. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2017, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/108 "2017-10-07T08:31:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Assuming it’s first-hand documentation for every interaction and event that took place in Selma, then the documentation. > > Do you have a cite that such documentation exists and contradicts his portrayal in Selma? It’d be an amazing coup of history if it turns out that LBJ wasn’t, in fact, a politician who acted with political concerns sometimes. Hah…that’s rich coming from someone who’s provided zero evidence whatsoever. Wait, wait, I know…it ‘feels’ right to you, right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2017, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/109 "2017-10-07T11:58:37Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Hah…that’s rich coming from someone who’s provided zero evidence whatsoever. > > Wait, wait, I know…it ‘feels’ right to you, right? ??? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/110 "2017-10-08T00:17:58Z")
Was I not clear, or do you not see the irony in presenting a theory with absolutely no supporting evidence while simultaneously asking ME for evidence supporting a theory which, had you bothered to read the cites, you could quite easily have found for yourself? Two issues there…your requiring evidence on a competing theory without providing any for your own, and your expecting me to do your legwork for you. You have more than enough info on how to find it, now do it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/111 "2017-10-08T00:52:23Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Was I not clear, or do you not see the irony in presenting a theory with absolutely no supporting evidence while simultaneously asking ME for evidence supporting a theory which, had you bothered to read the cites, you could quite easily have found for yourself? > > Two issues there…your requiring evidence on a competing theory without providing any for your own, and your expecting me to do your legwork for you. You have more than enough info on how to find it, now do it. I’m not presenting a theory, just my opinion. Nothing you’ve presented conflicts with my opinion, except that you’re upset about something that’s fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/112 "2017-10-09T23:37:31Z")
The idea that in a nonfiction movie, the message (or even the entertainment value) trumps accuracy…is appalling to me. But that is why it’s vanishingly rare that there’s a historically based movie (not including documentaries here, like the superb work of Ken Burns and Lynn Novick), that I’d say we’re better off having than not having at all. (An exception, BTW, so far as I can tell, is _12 Years a Slave_.) And it’s a sad state of affairs when people consider the appropriate mode of progress from racist films like _Birth of a Nation_ and _Gone With the Wind_ is to violate the truth in the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/113 "2017-10-10T01:54:41Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The idea that in a nonfiction movie This wasn’t a non-fiction movie. It was a movie based on a true story. That’s not to say that the film makers have a free hand to put whatever they want on screen, but a cinematic account based on real events is expected to make significant changes (combining characters, eliminating plot points, changing the timeline) in order to support the storytelling. It’s commonplace in films like this and is to be expected. There’s no problem IMO setting the record straight with corrections as needed, but that doesn’t take away from the film in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/114 "2017-10-10T02:46:13Z")
The basic story has two essential elements: Black women played a key and overlooked role in the Mercury program that got the first Americans in space (true); and they did so against the headwinds of an oppressive segregated work environment created by their colleagues (false). The first part was not an exciting movie, so they made up the second part. Not okay. Creating something like that out of whole cloth is a far cry from simply combining characters or streamlining a timeline. ETA: Remember, the woman who wrote the book this movie was adapted from described those guys in the white shirts and skinny ties as progressive idealists from outside the South who supported the nascent civil rights movement. No one would come away from this film with any clue that was remotely true. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/115 "2017-10-10T09:28:51Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The basic story has two essential elements: Black women played a key and overlooked role in the Mercury program that got the first Americans in space (true); and they did so against the headwinds of an oppressive segregated work environment created by their colleagues (false). > > The first part was not an exciting movie, so they made up the second part. Not okay. Creating something like that out of whole cloth is a far cry from simply combining characters or streamlining a timeline. > > ETA: Remember, the woman who wrote the book this movie was adapted from described those guys in the white shirts and skinny ties as progressive idealists from outside the South who supported the nascent civil rights movement. No one would come away from this film with any clue that was remotely true. The second part is just plain wrong. They did so against the headwinds of society, not their coworkers. Their coworkers were part of society (and there was, in fact, segregation on the campus at which they worked for some years they were working there, including having to take long walks to find a bathroom, even if that was before the story took place), but the problem and challenges the movie highlights were part of society as a whole, not just NASA. NASA may have been particularly progressive for the time, and this was shown in the film, even if it was a bit differently than the true sequence of events. ---
**Author:** ![Paxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@Paxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paxx)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/116 "2017-10-18T00:23:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And I really hope that those blackboard scenes were accurate. I think it’s a big boon to STEM education for Hollywood to show people actually _doing_ math, not just a vague “being scientists”. Well, there’s the scene where Katherine shows 15 men that she knows more than they do. Here’s what she says: > [@](#): > > The Go point for re-entry is 2,990 miles from where we want Colonel Glenn to land. > If we assume that’s The Bahamas, at 17,544 miles per hour upon reentry … 370 feet at a descent angle … of 46.56 degrees … > And the distance would be 20,530,372 feet or 2990 miles. OK! > So, that puts the landing zone at 5.0667 North, 77.3333 West. > Which is here! Right here. Give or take 20 square miles. 1. How and when did she determine the 2,990 miles? 2. The Bahamas cover about 100,000 square miles of ocean. The Go point is 2,990 miles from where? 3. 17,544 mph is the speed “at the time the rocket delivers the capsule into low space orbit.” (She says this earlier.) The orbit is elliptical, which means that the speed when starting re-entry will depend on where the capsule is in the orbit. 4. A “descent angle” of 46.56 degrees makes no sense within the context of starting re-entry. 5. She writes the formula for calculating [the range of a projectile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_of_a_projectile) that is launched at ground level at a specific speed and at a specific angle, assuming no air resistance. This formula doesn’t apply to re-entry. 6. Her calculation of “2990 miles” means that there are 6866 feet in a mile. 7. She magically turns the distance into coordinates for a spot in Colombia about 5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. 8. She points to a spot on the map that is about 1200 miles north of the coordinates. 9. “Give or take 20 square miles” is practically meaningless in this context. Later in the movie, before the launch of Friendship 7, Harrison says: “We can confirm the Go/No Go point for re-entry is 16.11984 degrees latitude -165.2356 degrees longitude. The launch window is a go. The landing coordinates match.” The coordinates are about 600 miles southwest of Hawaii and almost 6,000 miles from the landing zone. Then, after re-entry, Glenn and Mission Control use latitude and longitude (not altitude) to determine when to open the chutes: > [@](#): > > Here’s hoping these landing co-ords still hold. > Approaching 16.11984. > Roger that! > Approaching -165.2356. In 3, 2, 1. > Engaging chutes. Beautiful chutes. How do I look, Capcom? > Your Go/No Go is good. Landing coordinates are spot on, 7. Hey, maybe there’s nothing wrong with any of the calculations or numbers and I’ve made several mistakes. Please let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2017, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/117 "2017-10-18T02:23:57Z")
OK, it sounds like they tried… but you’re right, if you transcribed that correctly, they screwed up pretty bad. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2017, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/118 "2017-10-18T03:24:30Z")
Ouch. That’s painful to read. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/119 "2017-10-19T09:40:35Z")
It may not be surprising that the movie’s director would [describe things a different way](http://deadline.com/2017/01/hidden-figures-nasa-movie-ted-melfi-olivia-spencer-taraji-p-henson-1201878029/), but this is such a specific and almost over the top tale he spins: > [@](#): > > Every draft of the script I finished, I would then send it to NASA historians, Dr. Bill Berry and Bert Ulrich, and they would pore over it. Sometimes, I got nine pages of notes back. We would go through scene by scene and talk about the historical accuracy, first and foremost, and then the technical accuracy, and then accuracy of the math.” > > “I literally had to learn what the actual problem was and what the math was that was needed to take a capsule that was going to travel sub-orbital [used for Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom] and then go orbital for John Glenn. I felt that if I didn’t know it, I couldn’t explain it to the audience and it would feel fake. So, I had to learn the difference between parabolic orbit and elliptical orbit and also understand the math behind it.” > > He said he wanted moviegoers to understand how hard the problem was for NASA to solve. One sub-orbit shoots the astronauts into space and the capsule comes down in a triangle-like trajectory. To have a rocket shoot up and not come back down, but instead circumnavigate the globe, required new math, one that the mind of Katherine Johnson was able to think through. > > “I wrote that scene when Jim Parsons describes what those differences are between the two orbits and what math they didn’t have — that was the true problem at NASA at the time and what took everyone’s efforts to try to figure it out,” Melfi said. He took a full month to write that one scene. “I had to understand it fully to write it,” he said. > > Afterwards, the filmmaker was praised by the NASA historians, who told Melfi “that is best description of what we did and what we do that we’ve ever seen in layman’s terms.” I’m not qualified to evaluate the math, but I trust people here to do so (or for someone to correct an erroneous assertion), and it doesn’t sound like it \*quite \*matches up to the rigor he’s describing. And really, NASA historians signed off on every scene, including the big showpiece about the bathroom and the coffeepot? Hard to imagine that when the writer of _the book the movie’s based on_ had described NASA as this progressive, idealistic place, its own historians would endorse a depiction that was so different from that. Why wouldn’t they push for it to go more in the direction of how the book had described them? I understand why movie producers would like the juicier narrative of overcoming bigotry, but I don’t imagine NASA historians would have the same interest. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625/120 "2017-10-19T11:04:31Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > It may not be surprising that the movie’s director would [describe things a different way](http://deadline.com/2017/01/hidden-figures-nasa-movie-ted-melfi-olivia-spencer-taraji-p-henson-1201878029/), but this is such a specific and almost over the top tale he spins: > > I’m not qualified to evaluate the math, but I trust people here to do so (or for someone to correct an erroneous assertion), and it doesn’t sound like it \*quite \*matches up to the rigor he’s describing. And really, NASA historians signed off on every scene, including the big showpiece about the bathroom and the coffeepot? Hard to imagine that when the writer of _the book the movie’s based on_ had described NASA as this progressive, idealistic place, its own historians would endorse a depiction that was so different from that. Why wouldn’t they push for it to go more in the direction of how the book had described them? I understand why movie producers would like the juicier narrative of overcoming bigotry, but I don’t imagine NASA historians would have the same interest. I don’t expect that NASA historians have a problem with rearranging historical events to fit the screen better, and I imagine they recognize that even as progressive as NASA was (and its progressiveness was well demonstrated in the movie), those women still faced bigotry in the workplace and in society. At least one of those women really did have to hike a mile or more to find a colored bathroom, even if it was a few years before the events portrayed - the movie just made the desegregation of the campus a bit more dramatic and a bit later than it really was. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hidden-figures/776625.md?page=7)