MovieChat Forums > Sai de ke · ba lai: Tai yang qi (2011) Discussion > Attack aircraft? Really?

Attack aircraft? Really?

posted 12 years ago by handofnod9587
13 replies | jump to latest

Watching the trailer I noticed there's a scene where a Japanese biplane attacks tribesmen.

Soooo...The Japanese occupation of Taiwan began in 1895. There shouldn't be any aircraft involved. Nobody was using aircraft in combat roles until 1914, and even then it was an extremely limited scale until ~1916. Moreover where did it operate from? Are they going to suggest Japan had aircraft carriers in 1895? The Imperial Japanese Army/Navy air forces didn't even get any biplanes until 1910, and even those were completely unfit for combat duty.

Don't have a lot of confidence in this movie.

[–] asian_sushibot 12 years ago

Now, honestly hope you aren't trolling btw.

In Seediq Bale, the Japanese don't use the attack plane until sometime during the 1930's in the film. Also keep in mind its a trailer, so it isn't uncommon for the filmmakers to slice in events that take place further into the film. The Wushe situation occurred 30 years after the Japanese occupation.

[–] Dark-Dio 12 years ago

This event is happened in 1930.

If you know Chinese or Japanese, you can find alot of photos and clips on the Google.

Please read it first and doubt it later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wushe_Incident

[–] ash341986 12 years ago

The incident took place way later than 1895 (I can't remember exactly which year though). In most of the articles I have read about the incident, the Japanese did use airplanes to attack them with poisonous gas bombs, which was against an international treaty at that time.

[–] fuenping 11 years ago

The Geneva Conventions

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

It's a good thing the event took place in 1930... where airplanes were used in combat.

[–] ccharlie183 12 years ago

The planes are explainable but the use the Bren machine gun which didn't start production until 1935 is not excusable.

[–] maggotfarm808 12 years ago

That's because the year late in the film is around *1930* and you mistook the Czechoslovakian Zb Vz-26 (the gun that inspired the likes of the Bren etc) FOR the Bren gun. Different machine gun entirely, but very similar ;) The Czech's made the Vz-26 and sold it to just about every Asian/European country (and at the time, wouldn't *you* want some for your army? Beast of an LMG compared to anything else you'll get hands on at that time.) Now, I may be mistaken, it is either the Vz-26 or the *Hotchkiss m1922*, as you can tell the top loaded magazine makes them all look rather similar, but take a look ^^ snazzy history there.

[–] shaolins9 12 years ago

Wow! I'm always impressed by some of the knowledge people have and their ability to notice things which would pass me by. Good to see someone who knows what they're talking about.

[–] Porkleaker 11 years ago

It's always nice when someone knows the history behind weaponry rather than some clueless turd chiming in because he recognized the weapon from a video game.

[–] Seenya 11 years ago

I know this is an older thread but I believe the machine gun in the film is the Japanese Nambu Type 11 LMG. It's not the Type 96 as it wasn't produced until 1936. The Type 11 was made from the early 20s through the early 40s.

[–] nogard64 12 years ago

man you are an idiot!

the japanese were highly advanced and they adapted to technology really quickly.

It wasn't for the fact part of the American fleet was out practicing war games, the Japanese almost completely crippled the US in the pacific.

Its sad how people in america don't know *beep* about history.

http://hemestate.blogspot.com/

-things I write on IMDB may come from my blog

[–] fuenping 11 years ago

Let's be fair. The OP didn't say or imply anything about the Japanese being inept with modern war technologies or strategies. He/she was simply confused about a few seeming anachronisms he/she thought he/she saw in the trailer.

I think the OP raised reasonable questions that warrant explanations like the informative posts above. Not everyone has the time to see all movies that may interest them. To me, it is perfectly understandable if one looks first in previews/trailers for signs that would help him/her decide whether to go see one movie. And if the costumes, equipments, etc. are accurately represented is of course an important criterion for determining the quality of a history drama.

The OP was right in pointing out that some weapons did not in fact exist in 1895. But since the main part of the story is actually set in the 1930s when those weapons had already come in use, the appearing of them in the movie, then, should not be taken as a sign of factual inaccuracy. That's it -- no one was being an idiot.

[–] ta2me92704 11 years ago

Don't have a lot of confidence in this movie.

I would suggest not having a lot of confidence in people who critique an entire film based on the trailer. Man, did you make yourself look dumb...

My ignore list is much too long for a sig line.