Strange how a movie made in 1970...
looks more realistic than one made in 2001.
shareYeah I know huh? Most likely because back in the 70's there was no such thing as CGI.
share
MovieChat Forums > Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) Discussion > Strange how a movie made in 1970...
That's what using real ships and real airplanes will do for you. Of course, the tradeoff is some of those ships are wrong -- using an Essex-class carrier with an angled flight deck as a stand-in for one of the Japanese carriers, for example, or having modern destroyers being attacked in Pearl Harbor.
And when they switch to models it's pretty obvious.
That being said, I wouldn't have it any other way.
You buy egg roll!
[deleted]
Sadly enough, even with the cgi in Pearl Harbor, they couldn't get the ship's right. There are quite a few shots of modern day ships including one of the Japanese force being led by a Los Angeles class sub!
shareQuite a bit of effort was put in nonetheless as a mockup of the weatherdeck including big guns was made to represent the Nevada and Pennsylvania class battleships. And sometimes gems just show up out of nowhere when a plane prop goes spinning across the flight line imperiling real actors and was caught on film. The Fox studio execs though relieved that nobody was hurt tingled at viewing that footage for the dailies they saw. Maybe a real history buff will be calling the shots for the next Pearl Harbor effort and we will get excellent representations for US battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc. as well as the Akagi and Kaga carriers.
shareThat was an amazing shot. I remember watching this film for the first time and thinking "there's no way that was done on purpose!"
You buy egg roll!
Yep, as others have said it is because the aircraft were actually real and their flight characteristics were real as a result. If you look at some CGI war films they will clutter the sky with aircraft and also have them do things that real planes just can't.
But even if you look at SFX films like the original Star Wars, they still look real because they are, albeit in model form. When I tried to watch Red Tails, I had to turn it off as the dogfights looked like a computer game.
Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.
Exactly--CGI often looks like a computer game. And they clutter the sky with too many planes too close together, then they maneuver in impossible, unrealistic ways, too quickly. The CGI people need to look at film of real aircraft and copy what it looks like. The models in "Star Wars" looked better because, even though they were miniatures, they were real objects, subject to the laws of physics, being photographed in real light.
shareYes, some sequences such as planes flying just did not look real or even as good as real planes. Even if the planes actually used were incorrect in type compared to those actually used in the attack. Where PH shined was the visuals of battleship row from the air. I would guess that CGI is and has been a cheaper effect to use than recreations of planes and ships thus its appeal to film makers unfortunately. My understanding is that shots from the USS Texas were used in PH but whoever was responsible did not check for authenticity in terms of motion and structure as images were moved from static to dynamic displays. That the capsizing of USS Oklahoma was far from realistic. Perhaps more technical advisers were needed or needed to be listened to.
shareof course story trumps imagery -- every time it's tried.
shareI haven't seen the dreadful Michael Bay movie since 2001 or 2002 but the one thing I remember vividly - apart from a truly wretched Ben Affleck performance - was the strikingly unattractive cinematography. In trying to go for picture postcard prettiness Bay and co somehow concocted what is surely one of the ugliest mega-budget blockbusters in Hollywood history.
shareYea but there was no love triangle in this one, so I prefer the Affleck version
shareWell, it helps when you have real planes.
share