'The Hunt For Red October' isn't aging well

[Subnuts]

Ever love a movie to death when you were young, and re-watched it as an adult and couldn't get into it anymore? For me, I think The Hunt For Red October suffers from that problem. I used to watch it over and over when I was younger, getting caught up in the "big submarines!" aspect of it not really caring about the plot. I watched it again the other day for the first time in about three years. Good acting all around, great score, some nice tense setpieces...but I just couldn't get myself wrapped up in it like I used to.

I don't know why this movie doesn't do much for me anymore...and Sean Connery's accent doesn't really bother me at all. The whole film has this glossy, staged feel, and I can't suspend my disbelief and accept I'm watching more than just actors on a sound-stage, or models in a giant fog tank. Look at the titular submarine's control room - it's the size of a basketball court, plated in chrome, and has more blue and green-colored lights than an average disco. Some of the special effects in the last reel are horrendous, even for 1989. There are glowing white matte lines around the torpedoes and the final scene with Connery and Baldwin looks like a mid-90s FMV video game. I guess I'm just spoiled by movie like K-19 and Das Boot where they went out of their ways to make the interiors accurate.

Now, maybe I'm just bitching about the visual aspect of the movie, but there are pretty big plot problems as well. How did that DSRV end up on the Dallas in the 20 hours between it's run-in with Red October and Ramius evacuating the sub? How does Jack Ryan, a CIA defense analyst, tell the Captain of the Dallas to change course to the Laurentian Abyssal? The same captain who almost had in locked away in the brig a few minutes earlier? Did Alec Baldwin just hijack a billion-dollar attack submarine? That part has always bothered me. Oh, and why is the final battle play out like Snoopy versus the Red Baron? How do the three submarines detect each other even when they're traveling at flank speed? If the Red October is really "deaf as a post" in her baffles, how does it's sonar manage to detect a torpedo coming in from astern on three separate occasions? They make a big deal about "staying the baffles" repeatedly during the movie. Few things nag me more than a movie that breaks it's own rules.

Okay, enough complaining for now. It just sucks when one of your precious childhood memories deteriorates with age.

[Oberon]

Watch U-571, suddenly it'll seem like Das Boot. :up:

[JSLTIGER]

I might be able to kind of answer some of these things...

Now, maybe I'm just bitching about the visual aspect of the movie, but there are pretty big plot problems as well. How did that DSRV end up on the Dallas in the 20 hours between it's run-in with Red October and Ramius evacuating the sub?

Remember that Ryan's friend (the sub driver whose leg was messed up in the car accident, the guy who tells him about the caterpiller) told Ryan that he could get the DSRV anywhere in the world within 24 hours (at least in the movie). Presumably, off the eastern seaboard would not take all that long.

How does Jack Ryan, a CIA defense analyst, tell the Captain of the Dallas to change course to the Laurentian Abyssal? The same captain who almost had in locked away in the brig a few minutes earlier? Did Alec Baldwin just hijack a billion-dollar attack submarine? That part has always bothered me.

Remember that Ryan is traveling under cover as a Navy Commander, equal in rank to the Dallas' skipper Mancuso but with high-level orders. Also remember that Mancuso got orders diverting him to pick up Ryan (and also presumably telling him to listen to Ryan), so he knows that the guy is legit with orders straight from the top (i.e. Admirals far above his pay grade). "Someone must really have a burr up his ass to pull a stunt like this."

Presumably he's pissed off that Ryan has altered his plans and that he now has to listen to Ryan rather than being in charge of his own boat. That would explain the pissed off attitude he has, especially because his XO got injured recovering Ryan. Ryan didn't hijack the sub, he just convinced Mancuso that he knew what he was talking about.

Oh, and why is the final battle play out like Snoopy versus the Red Baron? How do the three submarines detect each other even when they're traveling at flank speed? If the Red October is really "deaf as a post" in her baffles, how does it's sonar manage to detect a torpedo coming in from astern on three separate occasions? They make a big deal about "staying the baffles" repeatedly during the movie. Few things nag me more than a movie that breaks it's own rules.

These things I can't explain, other than the torpedos might be actually loud enough (not caring about stealth at all) that they can hear them. Also, deaf as a post may have referred to Red October attempting to detect a modern SSN like Dallas. Remember that the LA class was state of the art in 1984 when the movie is set.

[Akula]

We'll the plot and acting for U-571 leaves lots to be desired, but the effects and interiors were pretty good. I am not sure about the US Sub but for the VII it looked pretty accurate.

[Trool323]

No I can always get into Old RED its a classic.....:up:

[geosub1978]

I recently watched The Hunt for Red October and Copola's Dracula. I experienced the same feelings...I am sorry for that... Though other movies like Star Wars episode IV, Rambo, Indiana Jones, The Godfather, etc I am still very attracted.

A movie that is all time classic is MURMANSK with Humphrey Bogart. Liberties, Uboots, Planes, Tankers!

[Pioneer]

A gentleman that I "know" was involved in the production of that film, from the naval side of things. I don't know exactly what he does but based on what others have let slip at social functions, he knows some 'stuff'. He is in the film, he's the stand in for Glen Close when the Dallas stops to pick up Ryan.

Couple of things from the film: the footage of the sub in the dock being repaired/worked on was a real sub (identity unknown) The Navy had to cover the propeller/s of the sub from civilian eyes and filming.

The book is less interesting than the film (opinion only)

And perhaps more importantly, I have heard one of two make mention that the Navy is still upset that Clancy was able to take one or two pieces of information, and build that story. The implication I received was that the story was fiction, but...

The biggest question I have is...how much better would that film had been if Harrison Ford has bought the Ryan franchise first, rather than wait till Baldwin let it go.

[TLAM Strike]

And perhaps more importantly, I have heard one of two make mention that the Navy is still upset that Clancy was able to take one or two pieces of information, and build that story. The implication I received was that the story was fiction, but...


Not quite fiction... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_frigate_Storozhevoy

[dwright44]

I kept thinking of The Hunt for Red October as I was reading Red Star Rogue a non-fiction book about K-129, a Golf II class Russian submarine that sank near Pearl Harbor on March 7, of '68. The sub carried three 1-megaton nuclear missiles and two nuclear tipped torpedoes. One of the on board missiles was being launched when a fail-safe system activated and somehow ignited the missile fuel causing a huge explosion sinking K-129.

The plotters planned to launch a 1-megaton bomb at Pearl Harbor and thought that China would be blamed by the US. The plotters did not know how advanced the US military was at tracking submarines so their plans would not have worked. We were just seconds away from WWIII.

Maybe some of the events in history that are revealed in Red Star Rogue gave Clancy some ideas, perhaps.

I don't claim to be a history buff but this book did help me get a better perspective on some past events in history. Like Johnson's sudden decision not to run for president and maybe the reason for how Nixon was able to get a few good things accomplished.

I was in the US Air Force as part of a SAC ICBM Minuteman targeting team. I can only guess that one of the drills we went through was not a drill.

I picked the book up on Amazon and highly recommend reading. As good as any Clancy novel, but I do have the DVD for The Hunt for Red October and admit to watching if from time to time and enjoying it.

[Castout]

I kept thinking of The Hunt for Red October as I was reading Red Star Rogue a non-fiction book about K-129, a Golf II class Russian submarine that sank near Pearl Harbor on March 7, of '68. The sub carried three 1-megaton nuclear missiles and two nuclear tipped torpedoes. One of the on board missiles was being launched when a fail-safe system activated and somehow ignited the missile fuel causing a huge explosion sinking K-129.

The plotters planned to launch a 1-megaton bomb at Pearl Harbor and thought that China would be blamed by the US. The plotters did not know how advanced the US military was at tracking submarines so their plans would not have worked. We were just seconds away from WWIII.

Maybe some of the events in history that are revealed in Red Star Rogue gave Clancy some ideas, perhaps.

I don't claim to be a history buff but this book did help me get a better perspective on some past events in history. Like Johnson's sudden decision not to run for president and maybe the reason for how Nixon was able to get a few good things accomplished.

I was in the US Air Force as part of a SAC ICBM Minuteman targeting team. I can only guess that one of the drills we went through was not a drill.

I picked the book up on Amazon and highly recommend reading. As good as any Clancy novel, but I do have the DVD for The Hunt for Red October and admit to watching if from time to time and enjoying it.

I like it too I picked this book on the 50% discount shelves quite a few years ago. It explains why China was finally warming up to US. And if the hardline in Soviet had thought about starting and winning World War III it should have been in the late 1960s or early 1970s and winning the world supremacy was certainly going to be easier if it had succeeded in pitting China whose relationship with the Soviet was deteriorating against Soviet's arch enemy the US.

[TLAM Strike]

I kept thinking of The Hunt for Red October as I was reading Red Star Rogue a non-fiction book about K-129, a Golf II class Russian submarine that sank near Pearl Harbor on March 7, of '68. The sub carried three 1-megaton nuclear missiles and two nuclear tipped torpedoes. One of the on board missiles was being launched when a fail-safe system activated and somehow ignited the missile fuel causing a huge explosion sinking K-129.

The plotters planned to launch a 1-megaton bomb at Pearl Harbor and thought that China would be blamed by the US. The plotters did not know how advanced the US military was at tracking submarines so their plans would not have worked. We were just seconds away from WWIII.

Maybe some of the events in history that are revealed in Red Star Rogue gave Clancy some ideas, perhaps.

I don't claim to be a history buff but this book did help me get a better perspective on some past events in history. Like Johnson's sudden decision not to run for president and maybe the reason for how Nixon was able to get a few good things accomplished.

I was in the US Air Force as part of a SAC ICBM Minuteman targeting team. I can only guess that one of the drills we went through was not a drill.

I picked the book up on Amazon and highly recommend reading. As good as any Clancy novel, but I do have the DVD for The Hunt for Red October and admit to watching if from time to time and enjoying it. I don't think any of the events in Red Star Rogue (If they even happened) were public knowledge except what was revealed about Project Azorian in 1975.

[Randomizer]

I don't think any of the events in Red Star Rogue (If they even happened) were public knowledge except what was revealed about Project Azorian in 1975.
Arguably though, the authors of Red Star Rogue do build an impressive circumstantial case for their version of events. The best propaganda is based on truth and secrets are best hidden in plain sight.

With billions wasted in a "botched" recovery (of an obsolete legacy weapons platform) leaked to the public, the general consensus becomes something to the effect that the CIA was functionally incompetant and nobody looks any closer for decades.

Gaining access to corroborating (but again circumstantial) evidence from the Soviet archives lends some legitimacy to the book as well.

The big issue as I see it with using intelligence sources is that these are institutions where all evidence is spun and corrupted as a matter of routine, where fact, fiction, lies and truth are melded together in a pool of bureaucratic paranoia and threat inflation so any such evidence, even if it fits, must be suspect.

I quite enjoyed Red Star Rogue and want to think it an accurate depiction of events dealing with the loss and subsequent search and recovery of K-129 but honestly, that jury is still out.

As for the movie Hunt for Red October, it has aged not too badly for this retired gunner... Better than the book I think.