Amazing airplane action!
I might be a simple man, but I really enjoyed this movie. I found the cast really likable, and the action to be really awesome. I don't think Lucas has done air battle as good as this, since the first star wars movie.
shareLet's suppose that in 42, the movie about Jackie Robinson's first seasons with the Brooklyn Dodgers, they used special effects so that whenever Robinson made a non-homerun hit, the ball zigzagged 90 degrees in midair all by itself several times to get around and past the fielders.
Then let's suppose someone you know, say a recent immigrant from a country where baseball isn't popular, who had never seen a real baseball game either live or on TV, started raving, "This movie is high octane action! It's awesome! I don't think anyone has done a baseball movie as good as this!" Would you politely nod in agreement and say nothing, or would you snicker (or even ROTFLYAO), and then set him/her straight about why the the special effects were so ridiculous?
I'm a former US Air Force F-4 Phantom Weapons Systems Officer (backseater). Most Americans have seen a baseball game, but very few people around the entire world have ever seen a real dogfight, let alone been in one. I'm just setting the viewers of this movie straight about what's wrong with the aerial combat scenes.
As I've said on many postings in this group, to paraphrase General George S. Patton, George Lucas doesn't know anything more about real aerial warfare than he does about f--- ing! (And George C. Scott may have said "fornicating" in the movie Patton, but the real Patton used the real F-word!)
Lucas was absolutely the worst person in the movie industry to do this movie. This movie is only the latest of many giant steps down the primrose path which Lucas started the world's movie-viewing public with the first Star Wars movie in 1977; I distinctly remember the documentary on the making of that movie, in which Lucas patted himself on the back for patterning his battle scenes after what he claimed to be the most realistic dogfight scenes ever filmed, and at the same time in the documentary intercutting his scenes with those from A Yank in the RAF which were absolutely the phoniest looking flying scenes ever filmed! And he hasn't bothered to learn jack s**t about aerial warfare in the last 35 years; he's just conned most of the whole world into thinking his cartoonish creations are reality when they're the farthest thing from it.
The technical fallacies are far too numerous to list. Lucas doesn't know the first thing about physics or aerodynamics, let alone the complexities of basic fighter maneuvering required to put bullets into another airplane. He just makes his CGI airplanes do anything he wants them to do to fit his fantasies and fiction. For an "historical" movie like this claims to be, Chuck Jones could have made cartoon Mustangs imitating the Road Runner and cartoon Messerschmitts imitating Wile E. Coyote and his Acme gadgets, and they wouldn't have been any more technically inaccurate.
I doubt that many people would watch a movie about Jackie Robinson that had his hits zigzagging around the infielders, and would be happy with it or not set someone else straight about such a movie.
I know you're completely right, and it could probably be 100000 times more accuarate.
However, personally I was very entertained and that is basically all that mattered to me. The thing that attracted me to this was basically the star wars like action. If any of the facts were true, and I was a little educated, that was just a bonus.
I'm sure a much more accurate film version of this film will appear sometime (if it doesn't already exist). But I probably won't see it, since WW2 films usually depress the hell out of me. Especially those who are 100% accurate.
Absolutely agree with you 110%
That's the problem with the current level of CGI. Not the CGI itself, but the use of it by the Directors.
Same thing with Bay's "Pearl Harbor" aerial combat scenes. Dogfighting 10 feet of the ground dodging around hangars and ambulances...!?!?!? WTF!
Modern cutting edge CGI can look extremely realistic, and used properly, you'd never know they were CGI.
But because they are CGI and not real aircraft or whatever, they are not limited to real physics. They can behave however the Director wants them to behave to get the shot he wants. This leads the director to produce some of the best looking aircraft fighting as though they are in a Coyote vs Roadrunner cartoon.
People like the OP fall for it because as he admits... He's a simple person.
(Hey OP.. I wouldn't be to proud of that).
It's simple people accepting crap as being a great film that makes Directors such as Lucas, Bay, Emmerich, etc... continue to make crappier and crappier films full of flashy explosions and eye-candy with little to no substance to them.
Single handedly ruining the film industry.
A great example of quality directorial use of CGI was in Avatar.
Even though the aircraft was fictional, the shots of vehicles lie the Samson coming in to land... you can see Trudy Chacon working the cyclic stick, throttle and rudder pedals and the aircraft responding and behaving appropriately. If the craft was real, that is exactly how it would have responded in real life according to real physics.
Because Cameron paid attention to such details, unlike Bay whole believes (rightly) that much of his audience is too stupid to notice.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
MadTom is absolutely correct. I just retired in 2012 after a 26 year USAF career. Watching the aerial combat in this movie makes me physically ill.
For all of you that want to see great aerial combat, combined with a movie that actually portrays an event truthfully, see "Battle of Britain"....tremendous aerial combat with ZERO CGI.
Arguing with a Truther is like trying to teach a ham sandwich to play chess - Sivazh
I hasten to add that, for any 'period piece' dogfight movie, CGI is probably gonna have to be used; not only are authentic 'vintage warbirds' valuable & dangerous to fly too vigorously (not to mention the owners probably don't want them 'bent'), there aren't that many in flying condition, so if you're showing large numbers of aircraft (B17 bomber streams; Me 109s dogfighting masses of Spitfires/Thunderbolts/Mustangs/Yaks/Stormoviks; Migs vs Sabers etc) the computer will probably have to create the scene...but like CG Sailor said, it would need a good director who pays attention to realism.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
...it would need a good director who pays attention to realism.
Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with directors that do not care about realism. They only care about whether simple minded people like the OP will get suckered by it "looking cool".
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
sadly yes considering that even realistic dogfights if decently choreographed can still look amazing.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?