Anyone a fan of "For All Mankind"...?

I don't do streaming so I normally get DVD's from the library.  However, this series is not available, even on Interlibrary Loan.  I'm not interested in buying the series without having seen it.  Any opinions?

I've heard really good things about it, but I have enough trouble watching the streaming services I already have without adding Apple TV to the list - which appears to be the only way to watch it (I own no Apple products). 

I liked the first 2/3 of the first season. Then the tone shifted and became, to my eyes, less interesting. It sure started off strong, though! 

I've not yet watched subsequent seasons, though I'm sure I will at some point. Definitely on my next international flight, at least. 

Got through most of season one when it shifted to more drama than science. And it plays a lot on alternative possibilities but they have $ome really big i$$u$e with the alternate realitie$ that are never adre$$ed. 

It's an enjoyable show, not perfect, but pretty decent. The farther the seasons go on and the same characters are still in leading roles many years after the show starts in the 60s, it stretches credibility a bit. And there's one plotline involving adultery in the third season that's pretty awful. Still, I find the show interesting and entertaining for the most part. It's an interesting look at how things would have developed had the space race and the cold war continued long past when they actually did. So, there are technological as well as political changes.

Ahoy Mateys!

I almost made it thru the first episode.  

Just like "Man in the High Castle", I can't get into that fictionalized real life. 

I'm about halfway through season 3 so far, yeah it's at least as much drama as sci-fi but I'm enjoying it, I'd say it's worth paying for.

alfadriver said:

Got through most of season one when it shifted to more drama than science. And it plays a lot on alternative possibilities but they have $ome really big i$$u$e with the alternate realitie$ that are never adre$$ed. 

I think they've mostly done a decent job of accounting for the very different economic reality of the alternate timeline so far. Note the wars that didn't happen or ended sooner and their reduced fossil fuel dependence, just to name a couple factors without getting into politics...now if I keep watching and see Dubai as a ridiculous collection of skyscrapers instead of a sad little town in the desert then I'll be pissed.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

No they didn't. We didn't really have the money to immediately have permanent people on the moon. Not even close. Let alone the soviets who had a lot less money. That would have bankrupted them two decades before they actually did. It was interesting that they put ev's so much earlier, on the backs of nasa. But that would not have gotten the extra billions to do what the show suggests. The only way that could have been found was to gut military funding. For both the us and soviets. But we see that didn't happen and the Cold War extended all the way to landing on mars. 

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

When they landed a +60 year old on mars, that was just too much for me.  (He was at least 21 in '54)

alfadriver said:

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

When they landed a +60 year old on mars, that was just too much for me.  (He was at least 21 in '54)

Exactly. Wasn't he supposed to be a fighter pilot in Korea?

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

When they landed a +60 year old on mars, that was just too much for me.  (He was at least 21 in '54)

Exactly. Wasn't he supposed to be a fighter pilot in Korea?

Yes. 
 

And the only reason I could see to go was to add so many layers of drama. Which carried over a season. 

alfadriver said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

No they didn't. We didn't really have the money to immediately have permanent people on the moon. Not even close. Let alone the soviets who had a lot less money. That would have bankrupted them two decades before they actually did. It was interesting that they put ev's so much earlier, on the backs of nasa. But that would not have gotten the extra billions to do what the show suggests. The only way that could have been found was to gut military funding. For both the us and soviets. But we see that didn't happen and the Cold War extended all the way to landing on mars. 

It looked to me that the cold war had become even colder on Earth and that the US and USSR were becoming more concerned with beating each other in the space race than the arms race in the alternate timeline...in Season 2 it becomes pretty clear that the cold war is straight-up moving into space at that point and there's lots of military involvement in both countries' space programs. So yes, I think military funding shifting to space is a totally plausible explanation.

Being midway through Season 3 I could also see that Ed Baldwin's age was becoming an issue. I can buy a somewhat sketchy private space program with a focus on publicity hiring a famous 60+yo astronaut, but if he's going to continue being the main character, he's going to need a billionaire lunatic who is his #1 fan to send him to space against basic common sense soon...

In reply to GameboyRMH :

For that kind of Cold War development, the space part was added for the show, not substituted. No way it could have sustained like that for decades on either side. 

Especially considering the speed of development. 

One great season

One very good season

One season spent building a shark ramp

One major shark jump season

Much like everyone else, I really liked the first couple seasons. It's such a cool, interesting concept and they handled the changes to history well. The show does veer pretty melodramatic in the last 1.5 seasons though. I'll still watch the next season whenever it comes out but my expectations are tempered.