MovieChat Forums > Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo Discussion > Attention to detail and research in movi...

Attention to detail and research in movies

posted 16 years ago by smiley-39
18 replies | jump to latest

The one and only time I ever saw this movie was at my local cinema in 1945. I thought it was one of the better war movies to come out of Hollywood for its time. But one thing stood out a mile which was a slight mistake. It was Spencer Tracy as the then, Lieutenant Colonel James A. Doolittle. Tracy always did have a fine full head of hair. In 1944 I saw the then, Lieutenant General Doolittle, in the flesh, just a few yards from where I stood in Grosvenor Square in London, climbing out of a staff car; and covering his almost "bald" head with his fifty mission crush, service cap! That was the only mistake that stood out in that otherwise good movie.
All the best to everyone Smiley-39

[–] USAFMXOfficer_2013 16 years ago

Wow! You can't argue with someone who stood next to Doolittle in 1944!

Check your personal messages.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 16 years ago

True.

But, I suspect that Tracy was a big enough star that he could have refused to shave his head or anything for the role.

Besides, Tracy did an awesome job in the part. His gravitas and star power far outshone the fact he had hair and Doolittle did not.

Did Doolittle ever comment on the fact that Tracy had hair while he did not? Maybe Doolittle was jealous?

[–] phantomsever 16 years ago

If you thought that Tracy was unsuitable in the Doolittle role, how about Ben Affleck in that three-reel reeker "Pearl Harbor"?!?!?

It's just the way Hollywood does things. Take a look at Alan Ladd in "The McConnell Story"......he doesn't look a damn bit like Joe! Robert Stack would've been a much better choice IMO. As for then-LTC Doolittle, I think Pat O'Brien bore more of a resemblance to Jimmy than Spencer did.

Six Actual......OUT

[–] smiley-39 16 years ago

You are quite right about Ben Affleck. I can mention another war film also; "Midway". Glenn Ford as Admiral Raymond Spruance, for instance. Miles apart in facial resemblence. The actor who did have a striking resemblance to Spruance was John Forsyth, who was the leading man in the TV series, "Dynasty". He was as close to Admiral Spruance as makes no difference. And another movie were they picked the right man for the right role, was James Cagney as Admiral William F. Halsey in "The Gallant Hours". Apparently Bill Halsey's son was amazed at Cagney's striking resemblance when Robert Montgomery invited him on to the film set during the shooting.
Glad to talk, all the best, over and out. smiley-39

[–] phantomsever 16 years ago

"Midway" and "Battle Of The Bulge" are two WWII films I'd actually like to see re-made properly (Michael Bay types need not apply!). And a big "Right On" re the Halsey/Cagney link......the casting director was definitely on the ball when they mailed out scripts. I think Forsythe would've been excellent as Spruance as well. At the other end of the spectrum we had Tom Selleck recently as Dwight Eisenhower......much as I enjoy Tom's work he bore no resemblence to Ike and the movie basically sucked watermelons through a Dixie-cup straw.

Six Actual......OUT!

[–] smiley-39 16 years ago

You mention the the "Battle of the Bulge". I wrote a comment on, "Battleground" on this website a couple of years back. This film to me was miles ahead about the last big German ground offensive against the allies in the winter of 1944. The fact that it was shot in black and white added, in my opinion, a kind of documentry atmosphere to it.
All the best, smiley-39.

[–] phantomsever 16 years ago

Roger that, Smiley. "BG" is and will remain a classic. A cogent script, an all-star cast (albeit with some stereotypical characterizations) and decent special effects made for a "numbah won" film in my book. Hard to miss with Van Johnson, James Whitmore, John Hodiak, Ricardo Montalban, Leon Ames, et al. Another great film about the winter of '44 in Europe is "When Trumpets Fade". I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Six Actual......OUT!

[–] TorontoJediMaster 14 years ago

You're quite right about Glenn Ford as Spruance.

Here's another needless error from that film. In one scene, Spruance is seen smoking a cigar as he watches operations on the flight deck. The real Spruance was known for his personal health habits; he didn't drink and he didn't smoke.

[–] nyc104 14 years ago

Ben Affleck didnt portray Doolittle in the film Alec Baldwin did.
Affleck I think played a likeness to Ted Lawson if you can call it that as he pilots the Ruptured Duck and even that has incorrect nose art.

[–] cancerman67 15 years ago

I met Colonel Dick Cole at a Houston gun show. Col. Cole was Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot in plane #1 (crew #1). He recommended this movie. He didn't seem too thrilled about the recently released "Pearl Harbor". In THAT movie - the actor portraying him kept doing the sign of the cross. Col. Cole told me he wasn't catholic and that was all made up.

He said "30 Seconds over Tokyo" is "pretty accurate".

If you live in the Houston area - he usually shows up at the gun show at Reliant Stadium. The next one is Jan 17 and 18, 2009.

http://www.hgca.org/

[–] txchuckwagon 15 years ago

Funny, my wife pointed something out to me: The scene where Captain York is briefing the men right after they arrive at Eglin, he gives instructions for orientation flights to locate and become familiar with nearby training airfields. He says "we'll meet back here at 3:30 this afternoon". Shouldn't he have said meet back here at 1530 hours?

[–] nyc104 14 years ago

Im a current serving member of the Australian defence Force and I have on occasion when using the 24 hr clock system when briefing troops had change to the 12 hr system as some of those troops I was briefing werent sure what time 1730hrs was.
Maybe this naval officer was being smart in thinking that the Army are a bunch of dumb asses.

[–] dln1700 14 years ago

Spencer Tracy was a huge star back then and to have his name attached to it assured the film makers of success, even though his role was relative small. The fact that he looked nothing like Doolittle wouldn't have even come into the equation. The simple fact is the film needed a big name star attached to the project. Had they changed the way he looked it could have affected the overall appeal of the film to the public.

Also, it was probably seen by the producers/director that if they spoke in military terms, in this case 24hr time, then the public would not know what they are talking about.

While both of these reasons seem to point to the dumbing down of certain aspects of the film it has to be remembered that these were simpler times.

[–] bobo-29 13 years ago

Jeff Chandler as Brig. Gen. Frank D. Merrill in "Merrill's Marauders" (1962) was a great piece of casting I thought. Strong resemblance.

[–] jacksonfelts 12 years ago

One glaring detail they got wrong is the fact that, as filmed, they were actually over Tokyo for 2 minutes and 20 seconds.

[–] VIOC-Tech 9 years ago

You looking to get smacked in the teeth, smart ass???

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deschreiber 9 years ago

I'm puzzled about what "attention to details" means to some people here. To me it means, for example, sticking to the facts of the story and using the correct type of airplanes, uniforms, equipment, and so on. (Were those real Zeroes in this film?)

But asking the actors to have a physical resemblance to the real-life characters they portray seems to be a stretch. That might make sense for characters for whom the public has a strong image, such as Churchill, Hitler, Montgomery, but surely not for everybody. Our movies would be filled with unknown actors who may not be able to act but who just happen to look somewhat like the original character. I don't think that's a good trade-off.

(Strange that movies portray Jesus not as the Jew he was but as the European of orthodox iconography.)