Houston, We've Had a Problem With Historical Accuracy

I suppose you can't really blame us. We're the victims"We've had a problem" is certainly not as action
of our own popular culture. While everyone is perfectlypacked as "We have a problem." "We've had" implies
familiar with the famous words, "Houston, we have asome prior event that has since ended, or nebulously
problem," those words were in fact not the onesso. "We have" means they're in the thick of it. They're
spoken from within the Apollo 13 spacecraft on Aprilin trouble and they know it, but did they know it? The
11th, 1970. The real exchange that took place betweenastronauts were reporting a Main B Bus undervolt that
the command module pilot, John Swigert Jr., missionhad happened. They were not predicting the
commander Jim Lovell, and the CAPCOM (short forimmediate and harrowing catastrophe that was then
Capsule Communicator) on duty at the time, Jackbefalling them. They were actually using perfect
Lousma, went like so:grammar.
Swigert: "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here."So maybe the writers weren't concerned with
Lousma: "This is Houston. Say again, please."grammatical correctness, nor historical accuracy.
Lovell: "Uh, Houston, we've had a problem. We've hadMaybe they only cared about the drama, but are the
a Main B Bus undervolt."actual words not somehow compelling? These men
Lousma: "Roger Main B undervolt."were drifting through space in a craft that looks like it's
The line everyone is so familiar with was a slightbeing held together by aluminum foil. Suddenly
historical revision, made by the writers of the film scriptsomething explodes on its exterior, and pure, very
for Apollo 13. Because it was the tagline for the film,flammable oxygen gas is encircling them like a halo.
the new phrase was repeated over and over onThe uncertainty of "We've had" implies that the men
countless movie promotions and plastered acrosssee, for a brief moment, the precariousness of their
every poster. This isn't necessarily a big deal. Itposition. It's the point before realization and action that
certainly doesn't modify the meaning in any irreparablecan only be described as terror, and can't a man be
way. All they really decided to do was change theterrified about a very real threat to his life staring him in
tense from past perfect (have had) to the presentthe face? Even for a moment?
(have).Perhaps that's not heroic enough. They wouldn't be
But if we can accept that it's not a big deal to simplynearly as daring as they seem when they say, "We
change the tense, then why change it at all? Considerhave a problem." What's more, if the writers were
first a possible argument on the part of the writers.looking to inflate their heroism, then Swigert and Lovell
Past perfect tense is, well, passive.could just as easily have been downplaying the
When you're writing a script you need an incitingseverity for the ground crew and attempting to keep
incident, something that grabs the narrative flow andboth themselves and their fellow crewmembers calm.
hurls it down its dramatic path. When writing a storyIs that not heroic?
about the Apollo 13 disaster, it's hard, no impossible toOf course, we've already decided that this isn't that big
not set up this exchange as your inciting incident. Asof a deal. The basic meaning remained, and American
the crux of the plot, the line was destined to be the tagpublic who would otherwise go entirely uninformed
line, and apparently it's insanity to write a tagline in theabout the heroism of the Apollo 13 crewmen were
passive voice. At the outside, I can accept that.properly inspired one of NASA's finest hours.