MovieChat Forums > Sully (2016) Discussion > Why vilify the NTSB?

Why vilify the NTSB?

posted 8 years ago by DaveDiggler
21 replies | jump to latest

It made little sense to do this, especially in the fashion in which Eastwood handled it, which was beyond abysmal. I understand this isn't a documentary, but why take a real life event and make this big investigation the main part of the story when it never happened this way?

Eastwood shows the NTSB conduct an investigation in which they try framing the pilot as a scapegoat (to protect the air line??). But during the final showdown the NTSB investigators listen to the recordings from the cockpit for the very first time?!?!?!?! During the public hearing?!?!! For the first *beep* time? Only to embarrass themselves and then admit the pilots were right as if nothing happened?

I understand Sully might have had some personal doubts during the investigation that Eastwood wanted to convey, but he was so clearly in the right that the investigation lacked any drama. It was so obvious it was going to turn out in his favor; it made the investigation pointless, which is basically half the movie.

Flight was a much better movie.

Poetry don't work on whores.

[–] HumansofSiliconValley 8 years ago

Whenever a pilot is involved in an accident or incident his or her fear is that the NTSB, FAA, mechanics, aircraft manufacturer, management and anyone else involved will attribute it to pilot error. Eastwood is a pilot so he knows this.

www.HumansofSiliconValley.com

[–] hppg 8 years ago

I agree he must have been very scared that there would be found to be pilot error or mismanagement (who wouldn't?!) but that would have been in his head, the way they showed it was ridiculous and unrealistic.

[–] mjz688 8 years ago

I agree with the OP. I kept thinking, Why is the NTSB trying to crucify this guy?" Then I did some reading and found that the strongly adversarial approach by the investigators was largely exaggerated by Eastwood. It's a shame because that fiction severely damages the credibility of an otherwise fine movie.

[–] sparrow_lt 8 years ago

Because hollywood...

They needed a "villain" for the Hero to prove wrong.. so they made one.. In the featurette Eastwood said he learned about the NTSB thing when reading the script.. so its not even an Eastwood thing.. it was allready writen and its not from Sully's book

[–] strntz 8 years ago

They needed a "villain" for the Hero to prove wrong.. so they made one.. In the featurette Eastwood said he learned about the NTSB thing when reading the script.. so its not even an Eastwood thing.. it was allready writen and its not from Sully's book

I don't know the motivation of everyone who blasts Eastwood (including those in this thread), but a lot of attacks on Eastwood (and not saying this one!) are political in nature.

I enjoyed the film, and that's what a movie is supposed to do for *me*..

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

[–] Johanes_Calvi 8 years ago

Why would the attacks be political? If you ask my opinion, the director (Eastwood) has control over everything on a movie and therefore he is to be blamed if there's something wrong with it.

I felt the NTSB were portrayed overly hostile. It felt like a movie without a villain, and I think the NTSB assumed that role on this movie. If that is accurate or not, I do not know.

Also it felt kinda forced the whole thing in the end where the NTSB suddenly had a changed of heart and started praising "Sully".

Overall, a decent movie, but I don't think there was enough conflict (drama) to justify the existence of this movie.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"But during the final showdown the NTSB investigators listen to the recordings from the cockpit for the very first time?!?!?!?!"

What the investigator said was that it was the first time he'd listened to such a recording with the pilot present. Obviously they had all listened to the recording...

[–] MovieElephant (331) 3 years ago

You're wrong.

1179
01:08:59,927 --> 01:09:02,554
I've been assigned by the
National Transportation Safety Board

1180
01:09:02,763 --> 01:09:05,098
to conduct this public hearing here today.

1181
01:09:05,391 --> 01:09:07,142
We have a lot of material to cover.

1182
01:09:07,726 --> 01:09:10,395
But before we listen to
the cockpit voice recording...

1183
01:09:10,563 --> 01:09:12,438
And we will be listening to it
for the first time

1184
01:09:12,606 --> 01:09:14,065
along with you, gentlemen.

[–] arashpour 8 years ago

I agree. This movie is a disrespect to NTSB. None of their hostile projected behavior in this movie was real.

NTSB are the professionals that keep you safe in the sky. They are not air police or court for that matter.

[–] sd45-1 7 years ago

I agree.

The NTSB job is to look at all aspects, assess the cause, and recommend improved procedures if warranted, but not to assign blame.

[–] londonviewer 8 years ago

because Eastwood hates all government agencies ?

[–] fede_4488 7 years ago

The NTSB added drama and conflict to the movie. WIthout them, would have been boring (altought some people did find the movie boring anyway)

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

First, Eastwood didn't write the film - he's well known for how little he changes the screenplays he chooses. So it's not all on him - although of course he could've chosen not to make the movie at all

Second - while inaccurately villain-ized, the NTSB wasn't THAT bad in the film; they admitted being wrong when the proof came out

I've thought about this a lot since seeing the film, and I can't see a way to have completely "internalized" the drama without turning Sully into some kind of wishy-washy Hamlet-type figure

The story was one of vindication, so the hero can have SOME self-doubt, but he still needs an antagonist

Then again, I'm no screenwriter, so likely I'm just not thinking out-of-the-box enough.

[–] strntz (11245) 5 years ago

The NTSB added drama and conflict to the movie. WIthout them, would have been boring (altought some people did find the movie boring anyway)

Yep. If the movie script was perfectly accurate, the whole movie would have been the couple of minutes between the bird strike and the water landing.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 4 years ago

The job of the NTSB is presumably to question the actions of the pilot (and co-pilot) so I think it's credible that Sully was under a lot of stress during the investigation, even though I doubt the NTSB could have concluded he was at fault, if only because it would have looked so bad politically. All the passengers survived, which probably was a big factor in his favor, but that outcome was not certain; things could have gone differently.

Even so, I think it's intuitive to feel the movie somewhat misplaced the conflict. It implied the main conflict was between Sully and the NTSB whereas the real conflict was probably internal, i.e. Sully questioning his own actions, and also the fact that even though he pulled off an amazing feat, he was probably quite traumatised by the experience.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

Actually reviewing the film again, I think the main conflict CAN be seen as internal

Viewed in retrospect, the NTSB's questions could be seen as legitimate inquiries that SOUNDED accusatory because of Sully's own self-doubt.

In fact, the same NTSB agents who seemed to be antagonistic were openly supportive of Sully when all evidence was in. If anything, Sully (the Tom Hanks character and the real guy) only disagreed with the NTSB giving him too much of the credit, and not enough to the rest of the crew.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 4 years ago

Very interesting! I haven't watched it in a long time. Your interpretation sounds good.

[–] mikethemartian (6280) 5 years ago

I don’t know how accurately the events were portrayed but I never saw the NTSB as villains. They were doing their job.