F4DPhantomII Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No assumption, and that scene was just one of many head scratching parts of that movie. Richthofen never shot down Brown, and they certainly didn't have a chat in no-man's land (which was not a lovely tree-lined meadow). Lanoe Hawker as a fat and bearded lunatic? "Hawker", or who ever that was supposed to be, was shot down flying an SE.5a in the movie, which was not available until over a year later. There was no such organization as the "Royal Canadian Flying Corps" . von Richthofen's brother was not flying with him on the day of his death. The love affair with the nurse was total fiction. They at least attempted to portray Albatri(even different versions)and other aircraft but then put them all in the same squadrons. Handley Page bombers flying in formation, night and day and getting shot down by the dozens....etc. etc.... All of those things above are mistakes that bother enthusiasts, and go completely unnoticed by most of the audience. That's fine, I can overlook that sort of thing if they get the spirit or character of the pilots and historical events close. But they turned von R, who was a professional soldier, a skilled and methodical fighter into a whiny, modern and insubordinate cartoon. The poor Brits suffered just as badly. Worst of all Ursula Andress was nowhere to be seen. Richard Is Ursala Andress still around? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Good points, all... Well, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't really have an opinion of the movie itself yet at this time. Cheers, Andre Hey Andre, sorry man. I know that kind of sounded like a dig at you and it was not intended to be that way at all. I just meant people in general seem to be more upset about people not liking the movie, then those that are not liking it. I'm holding out to a relunctant, very un-easy benefit of the doubt, but from what I've seen and read about it, I may find myself disappointed. but ya just never know. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anotherP51nut Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Is Ursala Andress still around? Haha! Yes, she turns 76 in March. That scene with the towel in Blue Max was burned onto my young brain. That's how I'll remember her. Now, that was a movie. Maybe inaccurate technically, but a good movie with a good script. "It's a cruel world, Herr Hauptmann...you said so yourself!" Richard Edited January 23, 2012 by anotherP51nut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 To recycle the catchphrase from Wes Cravens "Last House On The Left": "...keep repeating to yourself - it's only a movie... only a movie... only a movie..." ;) I'll probably go and see it if I have nothing better to do that evening. Then again, I have an unlimited subscription to my local cinema. Cheers, Andre ... or from the second Austin Powers: "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself." :) Earlier someone mentioned B-17s and oxygen masks. I'm no WWII airplane expert by any stretch - was the cockpit pressurized? Because techincally we're supposed to have masks on from start-up to shut-down, but ACTUALLY wear them only a fraction of that time... so it may not NECESARRILY be that inaccurate... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 B-17s were not pressurized. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hey Andre, sorry man. I know that kind of sounded like a dig at you and it was not intended to be that way at all. No offence taken! Like I said, you made some good points. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ... or from the second Austin Powers: "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself." :) Earlier someone mentioned B-17s and oxygen masks. I'm no WWII airplane expert by any stretch - was the cockpit pressurized? Because techincally we're supposed to have masks on from start-up to shut-down, but ACTUALLY wear them only a fraction of that time... so it may not NECESARRILY be that inaccurate... As far as I know the vast majority of WW2 aircraft were not pressurized, the B-29 stands out because it was. That is something I have to forgive movie makers for though, because you would lose a lot of the drama if the audience keeps wondering "which guy was that?" because they are all look a like pilots with their faces covered by a mask. In an interview one of the German WW2 top aces comments that he personally found combat on the Eastern front more traumatic because he saw the faces of most of the the pilots he killed. Unlike the western front where they usually flew at 20,000+, on the east front they flew low at low altitudes (usually well below 15,000 feet) so oxygen masks were rarely used. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 And I think even the B-29 was depressurized when over the combat area to prevent explosive decompression in the event of being holed by enemy fire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 You know, the more I think about this, the more I have to point out the obvious. All you people here on ARC looking for the uber-accurate aircraft movie will have to make it yourselves. The reason why we have yet to see a really accurate aircraft movie is because Hollywood is in the making money business. The purpose of producing movies is to make the most money. Making a movie that appeals to a small group of individuals (in the grand scheme of things, model aircraft builders and aviation enthusiasts are a pretty small group really) is NOT going to make the money to break even at the very least as these movies cost millions to make. We can nitpick and denigrate all we want, simply put this is probably the best we're getting. They will all have flaws and probably have at least some type of love story no matter how minimal. Most of the people who see this movie likely won't even know what a yellow nosed Me-109 is and certainly wouldn't be able to pick it out of the fray on screen. Heck, we should be glad we're even getting a movie that has a history theme and aircraft in it given Hollyweirds recent track record. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 You know, the more I think about this, the more I have to point out the obvious. All you people here on ARC looking for the uber-accurate aircraft movie will have to make it yourselves. The reason why we have yet to see a really accurate aircraft movie is because Hollywood is in the making money business. The purpose of producing movies is to make the most money. Making a movie that appeals to a small group of individuals (in the grand scheme of things, model aircraft builders and aviation enthusiasts are a pretty small group really) is NOT going to make the money to break even at the very least as these movies cost millions to make. We can nitpick and denigrate all we want, simply put this is probably the best we're getting. They will all have flaws and probably have at least some type of love story no matter how minimal. Most of the people who see this movie likely won't even know what a yellow nosed Me-109 is and certainly wouldn't be able to pick it out of the fray on screen. Heck, we should be glad we're even getting a movie that has a history theme and aircraft in it given Hollyweirds recent track record. Jason, I understand what you're saying and to some small extent agree. EXCEPT that there are two different aspects of accuracy to play here. There is the historical accuracy. You could go all out and try to maintain exact details of events that happen. And I agree that might not sell tickets. Then there is mechanical accuracy. Again, you could research and put a lot of time insuring the equipment and such are all accurate. And again, it might not be worth it to the general public. So I can agree with that being a little off as well sort of. But there is also believablilty. THAT is what I've seen as one of the biggest problems. A while back there was a sci-fi movie called district 9 (remember that?) In it was some totally made up and totally CGI species, vehicles and weapons. ALL done CGI and IT had more believability than some of the flying scenes I've seen videos of. Also, I think there is definately some room for critcism of movies regardless if it's all we're going to get or not. Maybe someone will take note and these aviation movies will get better and better, instead of just ignoring critical comments and thinking "well it worked for Lucas, so why improve?" But , again to each his own. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's always easier to animate something completely fictitious compared to something that is real ... A made up species can move any way the creator wants it to because "he says so", a real object or species has our perceived notion of how they move in the real world ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's always easier to animate something completely fictitious compared to something that is real ... And even then CGI is not always the answer, since the stop motion (a special effects technique that's been around for decades) AT-AT's from 1979's "The Empire Strikes Back" were more believable than their CGI counterparts in the prequels, precisely because their movements were jerky instead of silky smooth. The practical model work in "The Right Stuff" was pretty excellent as well. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 See, I never 'bought' The Right Stuff's SFX ... Never quite looked right to me ... Phil Tippet did a magnificent job with the stop motion animation of the AT-ATs, Tauntauns, etc ... And TESB opened in 1980 ... I thought most of the SFX in the prequels looked great with the exception of Yoda in some scenes due to seeing his motions already established in the Original Trilogy ... Again, perceived notions ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mec011 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I saw this review which contains the following line that gave me quite the laugh: And military buffs will get a kick out of seeing all these vintage planes back on screen. Talk about your oversimplifications! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 You know, the more I think about this, the more I have to point out the obvious. All you people here on ARC looking for the uber-accurate aircraft movie will have to make it yourselves. The reason why we have yet to see a really accurate aircraft movie is because Hollywood is in the making money business. The purpose of producing movies is to make the most money. Making a movie that appeals to a small group of individuals (in the grand scheme of things, model aircraft builders and aviation enthusiasts are a pretty small group really) is NOT going to make the money to break even at the very least as these movies cost millions to make. We can nitpick and denigrate all we want, simply put this is probably the best we're getting. They will all have flaws and probably have at least some type of love story no matter how minimal. Most of the people who see this movie likely won't even know what a yellow nosed Me-109 is and certainly wouldn't be able to pick it out of the fray on screen. Heck, we should be glad we're even getting a movie that has a history theme and aircraft in it given Hollyweirds recent track record. its not that Jason, its just that the whole thing was done poorly. if there were no planes and no cg in it, it would still be a bad movie because it was written, edited and directed poorly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
singeri Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I guess I need to go see RT's and make a judgement for myself. I really like "The Tuskegee Airmen" , do that is what I would be comparing it against. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mawz Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Having seen it, I'd rate it as much better than Pearl Harbor, but not quite average. At least there were no major anachronisms like Arleigh Burke's in the anchorage. The fundamental problem is writing. The movie couldn't decide whether or not it was a buddy movie, a heroic movie with a romance subplot or Terrence Howard chewing the rug in DC. They could have cut every single scene in Washington except when AJ gets the escort assignment for the 332nd and the movie would have been better for it even without any changes. The subplot with Pretty Boy needed to either be promoted to the main plot, with Joe Little as the protagonist, or cut. It didn't work with Pretty Boy being missing for half the bloody movie. If cut the movie should have been about Joe and Marty as a buddy movie. Oh, and the director and writer need a real lesson in dramatic impact. They totally flubbed Gannon's last scene, it shouldn't have been cut to leave the dramatic effect of Capt. Miller's conversation with Capt. Julian. The stupid stall-turn could easily have been cut and replaced by something more realistic (it was only used twice) but that's straying into the realm of nit-picking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Having seen it, I'd rate it as much better than Pearl Harbor, but not quite average. At least there were no major anachronisms like Arleigh Burke's in the anchorage. The fundamental problem is writing. The movie couldn't decide whether or not it was a buddy movie, a heroic movie with a romance subplot or Terrence Howard chewing the rug in DC. They could have cut every single scene in Washington except when AJ gets the escort assignment for the 332nd and the movie would have been better for it even without any changes. The subplot with Pretty Boy needed to either be promoted to the main plot, with Joe Little as the protagonist, or cut. It didn't work with Pretty Boy being missing for half the bloody movie. If cut the movie should have been about Joe and Marty as a buddy movie. Oh, and the director and writer need a real lesson in dramatic impact. They totally flubbed Gannon's last scene, it shouldn't have been cut to leave the dramatic effect of Capt. Miller's conversation with Capt. Julian. The stupid stall-turn could easily have been cut and replaced by something more realistic (it was only used twice) but that's straying into the realm of nit-picking. did you enjoy the shot of the pentagon that was thrown in there too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sabre Freak Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) My sentiments exactly. I will say that the Drew Brees-like 'to the last bullet' rah-rah bit seems a bit of an artificiality, meant to pander to the 'man in the street' who thinks that's actually what we do before a combat hop (wait, was I SUPPOSED to have been doing that all these years??), but overall I'm glad the story is getting some overdue attention. Maybe Lucas saw this and you didn't? Must have gone out of style when the Life phtogs weren't around? Edited January 26, 2012 by Sabre Freak Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I saw the movie last night, and like many have said there are the many inaccuracies, BUT, it was full of planes and explosions. What more can a airplane buff ask for. Movies with old aircraft are far and few between, it covers a topic that is not really cared about outside of the US (at least that's what the studios said and why Lucas is pretty much bank-rolling this thing) and it really is much better than Pearl Harbor! Overall, I had a good time, loved seeing all the P-40s and P-51s in groups and those Me-262s looked awesome! BTW, does anyone know what was the most expensive loss of 262s during any one mission for the Germans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Daddy Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I agree with pretty much everything IrishGreek says above though there were just too many planes in the sky at times, even for a warbird nut like, lol. I went to see a "private screening" of it last night (IOW, I was the only person in the theatre!). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mawz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 did you enjoy the shot of the pentagon that was thrown in there too? The Pentagon opened in January 1943 and the movie started in April 1944 so no issues there (and the shot was at least partially CGI, the cars were period). It wasn't needed though since the DC scenes should have been cut and it was just there to establish the location. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Living out here in the backwoods of Quebec, with no English movie theatre, I'll have to wait for the Blu Ray version. I still plan to see it though, because I usually suspend my accuracy radar instincts, and strive to simply enjoy the ambience and feeling. I just hope the acting and other aspects are not overly hokey. As a kid, I loved seeing the Battle of Britain. It inspired me to join the military and become a pilot, and also stoked my passion for WW II history. The two absolute worst aviation movies (inexcusably bad, in my opinion), were FireFox (Clint Eastwood), and the Iron Eagle series. They were so incredibly bad that even my capacity to enjoy inaccurate movies was defeated. I want to point out, though, that one of the aviation movies I most enjoyed was Top Gun. It was horribly inaccurate, but the reason I like it was that it conveyed the feeling of air combat. When Top Gun came out, I was learning air combat in the CF-5 at Cold Lake. Real (practice) air combat is quite different from the movie. The other aircraft are usually just dots or very small, and pilots work hard to assess the other aircraft's energy state and orientation, all based on a visual cue that is difficult to see. Making a movie with accurate air combat scenes, given the small size of the aircraft in the real dimensions of the turning circles, would be incredibly dull. In many cases, the resolution of the image on the screen might even make adversaries invisible or amorphous blobs. That's why in Top Gun they chose to show totally inaccurate close-up maneuvers, which have little to do with real combat maneuvers. At the same time, the scenes where two aircraft merge and heads snap around to keep tally are very much like reality. As I watched those scenes, I had goose bumps, recalling the same types of merge that had really occurred, and the surge of adrenaline as I cranked on 6 G to turn into the bandit while keeping tally (sight) over my shoulder. My point is simple. Real air combat, especially in the modern age with higher speeds and long-range radar/missiles, is impossible to capture on film or video, especially when the aim is to entertain the mass audience. When a film is well done, it inspires a sense of awe and a thrill associated with flying and combat. Those who look for accuracy everywhere are condemned to be disappointed. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Plano Guy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Alf18, that is an excellent perspective. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Plano Guy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Just a head's up everybody. Tamiya has re-released the P-51D with Tuskeegee airgroup markings in 1/48 and 1/72 scale. They are available now thorough Squadron. I built a P-51B years ago with Tuskeegee airgroup markings that I obtained after-market. I may have to add in the 'D.' Darn! I have to build another Mustang. Life is tough isn't it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.