MovieChat Forums > Torpedo Run (1959) Discussion > The Shinaro 'plot hole' above...

The Shinaro 'plot hole' above...

posted 10 years ago by skrall-991-949327
5 replies | jump to latest

Someone made a post (in Plot Hole section) about Shinaro not leading Pearl Harbor attack. From what I can see, this plot hole reporter got this from a crew member scene. I haven't seen any other reference to the Shinaro leading the PH attack. I'm watching it right now. I take that scene as rumor and crew chit chat. It was no serious conversation and it certainly didn't come from any exec or brass.

I really wish people wouldn't try so hard to report so-called "plot holes". Sometimes things are done for a specific reason. And, even if the Shinaro did NOT lead the Pearl Harbor attack...the assertion has very little to do with the plot.

[–] dawnrunsamok 10 years ago

About time someone said it...thanks, friend.

So, what do you think of Torpedo Run? I saw it many years ago and forgot much of the plot. However, so far, I can't believe the level of insubordination from the Exec., even if they're close friends. Perhaps I know less about subs than I thought. The depth-charge scenes are quite good, despite the number keel strikes they're miraculously living through.

For my money, I enjoyed Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) much more; although I am a bit biased, being a Burt fan. Destination Tokyo (1943) comes to mind as well. (not going to dive into the U Boat genre) What are your sub favorites?

[–] pt100 10 years ago

Yes, I think "Run Silent Run Deep" was a better film, although in that one Lancaster's character was also quite insubordinate (at least from the skipper's perspective), essentially taking command away from Gable's character and having the doctor witness it. Although Gable's character didn't put up much resistance, so it was kind of a gray area, I guess.

All submarine movies have their flaws and improbabilities, but I guess I'd rank my favorites this way:
- Run Silent Run Deep
- Destination Tokyo
- Torpedo Run
- Operation Pacific (good, but too much time spent on the romantic angle)
- Up Periscope
- The Enemy Below (depending on the point of view, it can be either a submarine movie or a destroyer movie)
- Crash Dive
- We Dive at Dawn
- Above Us the Waves
- Submarine Command (a bit heavy on the psychological/PTSD angle, though)
- Das Boot (A good film, but a bit long and claustrophobic; and the subtitled version gets a bit tiresome)
- U-571

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] pt100 10 years ago

You're right. Technically, the Shinaro did not lead the attack, because there was no carrier with that name in the Japanese navy.

And by the way, the carrier in the film was not named Shinaro, it was Shinaru (also a fictional name):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Run

But I think the person who listed this as a goof was failing to take into account dramatic license in fiction. A bit of overzealousness.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] skrall-991-949327 10 years ago

Thanks for the correction. Indeed I didn't know the spelling. And I failed to research "Shinaru" to see if it were an actual Japanese vessel.

But of course you are right...Torpedo Run is a fictional account. It is also regarded as one of the better WWII sub movies. Also right the person reporting it as a goof failed to consider the intent of the scene. Just because a character said something wrong it doesn't mean the creators were wrong.

Of course, now that you mention it, the makers may have meant for the Shinaru to have been a fictional Pearl Harbor attack ship. However, I do stand by my feeling that it doesn't matter to the plot- either way you look at it it's unlikely a goof. You almost reinforce that fact by reminding me the Shinaru never existed AND it is a FICTIONAL account. The reported goof is actually part of the story...and it remains powerful.

I guess I object to looking so hard to find fault.

[–] pt100 10 years ago

Yes, the studios have always had pretty good research departments. I doubt very much that they didn't know what ships were involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. There are countless examples of films' using phony names. That's why they have disclaimers about the fictional nature of films.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek