MovieChat Forums > Pearl Harbor (2001) Discussion > Very impressive effects

Very impressive effects

posted 8 years ago by Psilio
14 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film again for the first time since it was released, and I must say I was very impressed with the effects.

I've read that the movie isn't very realistic in regards of what really happened, but the attack itself had some amazing footage and effects. Truly magnificent, imho. Very well done! I can see why it received an Oscar nomination for best effects.

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

I've read that the movie isn't very realistic in regards of what really happened, but the attack itself had some amazing footage and effects.

Ummm... NO.

It i not just with the What happened, that the film got wrong,. HOW it showed it happening (i.e. those special effects you are raving about) is completely wrong as well.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

OK thanks. But how/when/why or anything else you can think of compared to what really happened, the effects are truly amazing, imo. Looks very realistic, especially for a movie made back when CGI was relatively new.

I mean if you watched the initial attack in this movie with no references to anything, it looks amazing. Again, in my humble opinion.

I'm Norwegian, and we had already been occupied by Germany for about one and a half year when this happened, so we don't learn much about this in history classes (another 'drop in the ocean' for us).

But I'm a flight geek and have flown quite many planes, and the depictions of the planes flying/dogfighting in this movie is in fact very impressive.

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

But I'm a flight geek and have flown quite many planes, and the depictions of the planes flying/dogfighting in this movie is in fact very impressive.

If you really have flown, then you know better than to have made such a statement.

One can excuse a person who is ignorant on such matters as how an aircraft really flies, but to claim to have flown then to think these planes were realistic is not.

It tells me that you are merely making the claim in a false attempt to bolster the veracity of your incorrect opinion.

The planes LOOK real enough visually. But they behave as cartoons. Not real aircraft.

When you film a plane performing the action, as they did in Tora Tora Tora... the planes act real because they ARE real. Now there are limitations in the HOW you film the planes because you are hampered by real life. Where you position the cameras, what angle of shots you can get, etc...

Virtual CGI planes you can film from any angle you want to and get the shot you want, So that is a boon.

But there is a drawback to that as well. One that proper attention to detail can prevent, however Bay is one who can care less about realism, even in a "Real" story such as the attack on Pearl.

The drawback, the trap one falls into is that the Virtual CGI plane is not real, but must be made to move and maneuver on the screen. It can be made to look like it is maneuvering and responding to real world physics and stresses and behaving like a real plane. Or it can be made to fly in a completely fanciful manner, like taking off backwards and tail first.

Bay did not make such an obviously egregious goof such as that, but at the same time he could care less how a real plane flies and maneuvered the plane according to how he wanted to and not how a real plane is capable of.

Or did you.. Mr Pilot and flight geek... think that real P-40 Warhawks and Type 0 Fighters could dogfight 5-10 feet off the ground dodging between narrow alleys and around ground vehicles and ambulances?

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

I'm just a hobby pilot and have flown mainly modern single engine Cessnas and Pipers (I have PPL-A certification only), but also a P-51 Mustang once, when the certified pilot let me fly it (amazing experience!).

I'm sorry if my post upset you, and yes I see what you mean about the realism, but it's just my opinion anyway, like I mentioned. It was not my intention to start a discussion about this. I just felt like sharing my opinion.

Personally I got butterflies in my stomach when watching some of the scenes, and that doesn't happen often when I watch war movies. I'm an avionics engineer, so I know about the physical limitations of aircraft, both now and then, but I still found the effects in this movie thrilling, even though some of them are not physically possible :)

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Of course something can be thrilling without being physically possible.
Death Star Trench run.. anyone?

But this is Pearl Harbor, a real event still within living memory of history.
Not fantasy/Sci-fi.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

Death Star Trench run.. anyone?

Best Star Wars scene ever! 

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] DD-931 8 years ago

Well put, CGSailor. Your points are all on target. Unfortunately, you can see that some people will persist in valuing the "cool factor" over honest and realistic portrayals of basic physics. The sad part is, if some people understood how things really worked in the real world, they might be truly impressed about accurate portrayals of real world events.

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

Just noticed this post. I think you should read the entire thread :)

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] bible-and-science-forum 8 years ago

But they behave as cartoons. Not real aircraft.

Indeed. I was shocked by how cartoonish was the attack.

The bomb explosions in war movies usually are the first reminders that a lot of fakery is going on. (There's so many nice "clean" propane flame-bursts instead of anything resembling actual bombs explosions. A few might be OK, but when it is one after another, it reinforces the cartoonish aspects.)

Real warfare is dirty, often gorey, and explosions at a distance have delays based upon the basic physics of sound waves not travelling at the speed of light.

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

Real warfare is dirty, often gorey, and explosions at a distance have delays based upon the basic physics of sound waves not travelling at the speed of light.

'Fake' explosions are the same, dear. The physics don't change just because it's a movie, unfortunately :) They normally synch the sounds of the explosions with the actual explosions in movies to make them more effective.

Film makers think us all idiots and make the effects as they think will scare us the most. None of them have probably experienced a real explosion themselves. Even if they had, they'd do the same thing.

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)

[–] bible-and-science-forum 8 years ago

'Fake' explosions are the same, dear.

No, "dear". Fake explosions involving propane bursts look nothing like most explosions in actual combat. (A critique of the audio realism would be a mixed bag involving even more variables, so I'll avoid that tangent.)

In fact, in one's first experience of actual combat---even in the pre-television world of those of us who lived WWII--- the reality of the significant time delay between seeing the explosions and feeling/hearing the sound of the explosions was what kept telling me that this was real, and NOT a Hollywood movie. Thus, for many of us, the lack of that realism of the actual physics of sound in most cinema makes for less effective depictions.

Indeed, "dear", I was impressed that Tom Hanks' commentary for Private Ryan astutely recognized that that kind of attention to combat realism makes a film depiction powerfully more effective, not less.

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

You're taking this this much too serious :P

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

yes, the effects were the best thing about this movie

that and Kate Beckinsale

so many movies, so little time