MovieChat Forums > The Wackiest Ship in the Army (1960) Discussion > They DID IT AGAIN!!!!!.....Geez!! ...

They DID IT AGAIN!!!!!.....Geez!!

posted 16 years ago by EuroNYC7
12 replies | jump to latest

Here we go again!! Doesn't the director ever pay attention to historical accuracy/technological history? Given the fact that the film is set sometime during the middle of the Second World War, in the Pacific area of operations, what do we see? A Grumman S-2 Tracker (TWIN-ENGINED!!)anti-sub hunter/killer taking off from an aircraft carrier (the latter which at least "passes" for that time period). First of all, the only time I know of, of twin-engine aircraft taking off from flattops during WW-II was the famous Doolittle raid on Tokyo on April 18th,1942. Sixteen twin-engine B-25 bombers and their crews, specifically trained for such a then unheard-of operation, took off successfully from the carrier USS Hornet. Miraculous, even outlandish, for those days; definitely not a COMMON OCCURENCE. Second (and possibly most important), the S-2 DID NOT EXIST in 1941-45, at any time. The "...Grumman S-2F Tracker was conceived through a late 1940s U.S. Navy requirement for a long-range carrier-based anti-sub hunter/killer aircraft. It first flew on December 4th, 1 9 5 2..." Source: The Encyclopedia of the World's Aircraft, David Donald & Bill Gunston, May 2000, Random House Publishing. YES! That's right. 1952...that's 7 years after the end of World War II. I'm under the impression that either most of the directors/producers of today and yesterday have/had a case of chronic negligence, or they must assume/have assumed audiences are/were simply too stupid OR oblivious OF ANYTHING to notice. If one is to shoot a film involving events in pre-2000 history and beyond ( at times,WAY beyond), PLEASE do your RESEARCH on the subject matter, being profoundly meticulous in covering all angles---get the facts straight on everything, befitting the nature of the film (Locations, edifices, automobiles, trucks, buses, aircraft, ships, fashion styles, gadgets, advertisements, other accoutrements, etc,etc,etc.). Then, when all is done, ask yourself, "Can I do it? Can I FINANCIALLY afford to shoot this film? Will I need to use CGI(Computerized Graphic Imaging), or will I need to rent the vintage equipment? What will it cost?.." If the director/producer's heart is geared toward persistence and dedication in filming, the next most important step is to INVEST. Bottom line? Do it RIGHT or DON'T DO IT at all. Thank you. ( P.S. Here's a Grade-A example of a well-done (WW-II) historical film: "Saving Private Ryan"(1998). Tanks, artillery, small arms, aircraft, right down to uniforms and insignia---perfection at its best if you ask me. Way to go, Steven Spielberg!)

[–] hossrex 15 years ago

Does anyone read this and think "gosh... he's right... all those historical inaccuracies really wrecked this naval comedy"... or is everyone like me, who reads this and thinks "So? The movie was made in 1960... not 1945 (when those vintage planes were still easily available), or even 1995 (when CGi means you can just do whatever you want to do, so long as you own a computer). The producers had what they had, and only lonely men who sit up nights reading their Janes Aircraft Recognition guides would know the difference."

Also... a wall of text... ugh. Painful to read on even an aesthetic level.

If you can't enjoy a movie about world war 2 (in the pre-CGi era), simply because it features a couple planes from the fifties, I pity you.

BTW: Saving Private Ryan was boring. There. I said it. They spent a lot of time making sure it was "perfection", but forgot to make it interesting. The only thing that broke up the monotony of Private Ryan (other then Hanks' amazing performance) was seeing Ted Danson. It was such a bizarre choice that it really drew attention to itself, which was hilarious.

To quote Mystery Science Theater 3000: "If you're wondering how he eats, and breathes... and other science facts... just repeat to yourself its just a show... I SHOULD REALLY JUST RELAX!"

[–] mausermike63 15 years ago

Actually, in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, those Tiger tanks weren't actual Tigers. They were Russian made T-34/85s that were made to look like the real tanks. If you look at the undercarriage, the wheel assembly is only one row--not the double row that the actual german tank had. Also the porportions of the turret to the rest of the tank is wrong. The turret on these movie tanks are too big in relation to the rest of the tank to be real Tigers.

There are only a small number of acutal Tigers left and they're probably restricted to museums.

It would have been nice if we saw Lemmon fly off the carrier in an SBD Dauntless or the trainer that can pass for it, but like the previous poster stated, they worked on a limited budget and the audience demands then weren't as demanding as a more modern audience.

[–] winplaceshow 15 years ago

Exactly Hoss.

I notice a lot of that stuff when it's wrong, but I figure they usually do the best they can with what they can get; when it's not critical to the story, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes it's not even a budget thing, but a logistics thing. Example: In "Patton" the American tanks being made up to look "German".

And I DO appreciate it when things are done correctly. Example: Correct tanks being used by both sides in "Kellys Heroes".

And BTW Vales, the LCVPs used in "Ryan" are completely incorrect, Korean-war era, fiberglass boats. You can tell by the ramp control mechanism. If you knew ANYTHING about landing craft, you would have spotted this immediately and let it ruin the movie for you. I mean, if Spielberg really cared, he would have had that fixed with CGI, right?

Geez.

And yes, I do know something about Higgins boats, and it's from first-hand experience; not from reading about them in books.

[–] hossrex 15 years ago

Interesting about the inaccuracies about Private Ryan.

I'm not exactly a World War 2 expert, and I apparently mistakenly took the critics seriously when they praised its accuracy.

[–] EuroNYC7 15 years ago

Hey winplaceshow. I know nothing about landing craft or equipment that most WW II buffs really don't pay much attention to anyway. I'm referring to BASIC stuff like aircraft, tanks, uniforms--the kind of items that are MORE NOTICEABLE in everything from the numerous movies, to the history books, to the History Channel documentaries...who gives a crap about LCVPs?? They can still PASS for WW II boats! Everyone I know praised "..Ryan" for accuracy, okay? Nobody pays attention to a craft like that more than they would a plane like an F4U Corsair or an M4 Sherman. I wasn' t paying ANY ATTENTION AT ALL to the landing craft--nobody really does. Now if I were to see an M60 tank in German markings, especially in today's day and age of film-making...That would be a problem. Comprende???

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RondoHatton 12 years ago

You realize, of course, that Japanese-marked SNJs and AT-6s have killed more Americans in movies than any Zero ever did? The movie "Pearl Harbor" must have really pissed you off!

"Stalker?"
"Yup, bigtime"

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

The OP says "Who cares about landing craft" but then goes on a rant about the inaccuracy of what he calls "basic stuff" like aircraft?!! Basic stuff??!! How many people are experts on either one? And why would getting one thing wrong not matter, but getting another be so critical that the whole movie falls apart for the mistake?

To quote the OP -- "Geez!!"

Now, as it happens, I sympathize with the OP's point. I like to see filmmakers get stuff right. Many of us have found goofs in many films, some more egregious than others. Often there's no good reason for them to be making mistakes, especially when these involve simply getting a piece of information right, which would cost them nothing at all (as opposed to having to go to the expense of hiring or building actual aircraft or other big-ticket items to make a movie more realistic, where making a cheaper or easier substitution is at least understandable).

That said, I do think his post is a little over the top. His issue is an incidental aspect of this film, not crucial to it in any way, and something the vast majority of people would never know or notice. His point is well-taken but not too important, so please...calm down. Assuming he's still upset four years later.

Geez!

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

Calm down is right. If they had been going for accuracy and what not they wouldn't have hired Jack Lemmon and the biggest teen idol in 1960 (except for Elvis).

I went to that movie back then just to see Ricky! I was 10 years old. Believe me historical accuracy made no difference to all the teenagers and young girls who saw it.

Get over it. It was a fun movie back then, had some drama and I loved it.
It is still a fun movie to watch.

Too bad Ricky and Jack are gone.

[–] jillsand-1 10 years ago

I agree with you. As I was born in 1960, not 1950, I can only recall seeing it years later in a rerun here in Australia. It was popular and I just read about the real story that was behind the movie today, so looked it up. If you are interested, here is a link to read about it:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/ragtag-fleet-war-heroes-still-seeking-australian-recognition-20131219-2zm90.html

As for my opinion back then and now, I never look at comedies as anything more than lighthearted entertainment. I don't care personally if they have some historic element wrong, or if the colour of a jacket is different to what it should be, for instance. To me, as a female, a plane is a plane. I don't go and look it up after the movie to see if it existed at the time when the movie was supposed to take place. Only guys or experts would look into that. My point? Not EVERYONE is interested in the film to that level, and most people just enjoy the movie as a lighthearted romp. Enough said.

[–] jejozi 10 years ago

Lighten the frack up, Francis.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

[–] Jefbecco-1 8 years ago

It's a work of fiction - not a documentary. I'm a police officer. In a few months it will be sixteen years. Now you want to talk about a profession that is portrayed inaccurately on television and in the movies - not to mention novels. And yet I still watch many of those shows and movies. Try to not let it get to you. It's fiction. I actually would be bored to tears if I saw a movie that accurately portrays American lae enforcement. Wow. Talk about boring.