Uhm...yeah. Okay.


Okay, I'm a little puzzled here.
I just caught the last 30 minutes of this movie (and a very long 30 minutes it was), but the inflating of the life vests while still in the air??

If they had gone for a water landing (ie ditch in the bay), the would have all drowned. The water pouring into the cabin would have pushed anyone wearing an inflated vest into the ceiling of the aircraft. Try getting to the emergency exit then. :)

Look what happened to some of the passengers who survived the Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 ditch.


Something else I noticed...that DC-4 had an awful BIG and ROOMY cockpit! :)
Not to mention how quiet it was in that whole plane. If a DC-3, with just two P&Ws makes your voice tremble while in flight, just think what four of them wonderful engines does!


I will not mention the sleeping boy, the dumping of carry-on luggage in midflight or the "turn that thing off"-guy in the tower.



reply

Beleive it or not, the reason the airline industry doesn't inflate the life vests inside the cabin anymore is because they used to make that mistake all the time. I'm sure someone knew what would happen, but it wasn't always the case that passengers were warned. I think around the 80's it became policy to warn passengers of doing such things.

reply

This movie was a pioneer disaster film when it first came out. I remember seeing it and it was a real thriller -- lol true. But it has aged considerably. First it seems to be shot almost entirely on stages, the acting is so melodramatic, and the dialogue is soooo corny by today's standard. Plus it suffers from post-Airplane comparison. Watchable as a historic piece and little more.

Funny though that Robert Stack is in this and Airplane. Wonder if that was purposeful by the producers of Airplane.

reply

Funny though that Robert Stack is in this and Airplane. Wonder if that was purposeful by the producers of Airplane.


I'm sure it was.

Many of the expressions he uses here are similar to the ones he uses in Airplane (or Flying High as its also known).

reply

...Not to mention how quiet it was in that whole plane.


Yes that was vey obvious.

I guess the producers may have felt that it would annoy audiences to have continual background noise from the aircraft's engines occurring throughout the film.

reply

Wow - you're all a tough audience! The only 4-engine propeller airplane I ever flew in was a P-3, and the noise was pretty bad, so sure the DC-4's weren't much better. I recall being at the airport terminal and watched an Eastern Airlines DC-6 get ready to taxi, and seeing the airplane just vibrate as the engines were throttled and the noise was pretty deafening, but imagine had they included that in the film - you'd only be able to known what they were saying with closed captions (lol)...

It's a good film - being a John Wayne fan makes that much easier...

Well...

reply

None of the passengers ever have to use the bathroom! How realistic is that!

The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and clamorous to be led to safety.

reply

also, smoking onboard by crew is now forbidden.

reply

They're flying along and open a large door and begin throwing the luggage out. There's no problems with differing air pressure and no wind or turbulence. They are just walking around beside the open door, (this is from having seen in a while ago, so this is my memory of it). it seemed totally unrealistic.


Love the music, though.





The past is a series of presents. The present is living history we are privileged to witness

reply

In that kind of plane, at the speed and low altitude they were flying, you could open the cabin door in flight. Prop planes didn't fly at 35,000 feet like today's passenger jets. This plane was at about 9000 feet and the air pressure isn't significantly different. Of course you had to be extremely careful and it's not something you would ever do other than in an emergency but it could be done. Both writer Ernest K. Gann and director William A. Wellman were pilots. Do you think they'd make such a titanic goof like that if it weren't feasible? Opening a plane's cabin door is also depicted in some other older films about flying, such as Five Came Back and its remake, Back From Eternity.

But the rest of your memory serves you badly I'm afraid, schappe1. There was in fact plenty of wind, though not much turbulence at that point. Wayne stood in the doorway and had to be held by Robert Newton, who in turn was braced well inside the plane. Nor is anyone "walking around beside the open door". In fact, no one goes near the door while Wayne and Newton (Wayne Newton? :)) are by it. Everyone stays well away. And the door is only opened long enough to toss the luggage out. No one had the chance to just walk by it even had they been foolish enough to want to. Once the luggage is gone, they shut the door tight again.

However, you're exactly right about the music. A fantastic score by the great Dimitri Tiomkin, who deservedly won an Oscar for it.

On other aspects raised by various posters....

As poster "chord" pointed out, while inflating the life vests inside the cabin is no longer done because of the dangers he described, it was common practice back in 1954 and so was a correct depiction of such procedures at the time. (You also see this in the 1940 film Foreign Correspondent, where the passengers don life jackets before the plane hits the water and several people do drown in the wreck as a consequence.)

Yes, the engines would have made more noise than is heard in the film, but this is after all a movie. You need to hear the dialogue. Lowering external sounds to hear the actors is common in most films, so there's nothing the least unusual about that here. Anyway, in real life the noise inside the cabin was noticeable but not deafening.

No one went to the bathroom? True. But -- in how many Hollywood movies before the 1970s were people actually shown going to the bathroom? Approximately zero. Not until 1960, when Hitchcock put one in the motel bathroom in Psycho, did a major film even show a toilet. And even Hitch didn't have Janet Leigh use it for anything except flushing away those torn pieces of paper. Frankly, I really don't need to see people going to relieve themselves. But that's just me.

My favorite comment was from poster "mam13143". In complaining about the acting (which was pretty good all around) and dialogue (which was criticized as hokey and clichéd even then), he also wrote, "First it seems to be shot almost entirely on stages". Well, duh! Did he think they were up in a real plane? All in all, considering they were using CinemaScope cameras in a cramped space, the interiors of the plane were very well handled...even if they were just cut-away sections on a sound stage.

This film is overlong and has a few dull patches but overall holds up quite well. Some people seem to expect 2014 attitudes in a 1954 film, which is of course ridiculous. Oddly, most of the criticisms of this movie as a piece of entertainment that you hear today were also voiced when it came out. But it's a solid film.

I just wish the DVD had that missing ten-second part of Jan Sterling's big scene with Paul Kelly in it!

reply

Without cabin pressurization, they would have to fly below 10,000 feet, due to oxygen requirements, and there would not be a difference between cabin and outside pressure.
In the early 80's I vacationed in Mexico, and took a flight to see the Mayan pyramids. The plane was a old Martin 404, with twin radial engines. Some of the passengers complained about the air conditioning, it was the jungle after all. The cabin crew opened the front and rear doors to get flow through ventilation. We were at about 4,000 ft and it was only a 30 min flight, but still way different from a B767 or an A330! But you could open the doors back in the day.
lou

reply

I've always thought it was a great advance in film history to cross that barrier -- show people taking a crap.

reply

Last summer I went skydiving. When we rolled open that big door at 13,000 ft there was no turbulence at all and it just felt nice and breezy inside the cabin.

I believe non-pressurized commercial airliners like the one in the movie had a typical cruising altitude of between 10,000-12,000 ft.


"Who's running this airline?!"

reply

Inflating life vests on board is often listed as a mistake. Most military and crew practice is against it, since you might have to swim DOWN to the exit, impossible with an inflated vest. However, some airlines did instruct to inflate before ditching, expecting the panicked passengers not to have the presence of mind to do it post crash. Many prop liners broke apart when they hit the water, so there was a kernel of sense to it.
My airline did not inflate, fearing the inflated vests would slow down evacuation or be damaged and deflated during evacuation. But given the very few airline ditchings, you could find events that would support either argument.
l

reply

No matter how much you explain to people about evacuation procedures, many passengers would certainly panic and forget or ignore instructions not to inflate life vests until after leaving the plane. I'd think the main problem would be having the inflated vests get in the way of getting people out, making moving around and exiting more difficult in such narrow confines.

What did the passengers aboard that flight that ditched in the Hudson River a few years back do? I remember seeing them standing on the wings after landing on the water, their life vests inflated. But I don't know if they waited until they got out to inflate them. I'd think so, but Captain "Sully" would know.

reply

Actually people keep it together much better in real life than they do in movies. The pictures of Sully's flight were taken after the evac, while the passengers were standing on the wing, when the vests should have been inflated, so it doesn't prove one way or the other.
l

reply

That's my point -- we can see their vests inflated, but they're outside the fuselage. I wondered whether they inflated them before exiting the plane or not, and how they were instructed.

I don't know that there's any consistency in how people deal with adversity during a flight. I've heard of people panicking and carrying on -- not everyone, but some passengers. On the other hand, from what scant, anecdotal information we have, the people aboard the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 seem to have behaved with extraordinary calm, all things considered. Obviously it depends on the nature of the crisis, and ultimately just the personalities involved. You can never be sure. (Even some movies show passengers in relatively good control of themselves during crises.) Still, even when not hysterical, people can do the wrong thing just out of tension or confusion.

reply