Red Tails (2012)

[Biggles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw&feature=player_embedded

So we finally see some progress of this movie project! :yeah:

Looks promising, but I hope they add more sounds to the real movie, it bugged me to hell to see those bomber crews talk with little to none disturbance from the engines...

[Oberon]

262 pilots wish their 262s could do that. :haha:

Well...it's nice to see a plane film...but it looks a bit...well...Flyboys-ish, and I have a feeling will serve to exaggerate the myth of the P-51 as a super-weapon. (Disclaimer: I am not stating the P-51 was not good...it was good, a damn good fighter, but not as good as people make it out to be).

So, looks to be a good action flick, and it does good for telling the tale of the Tuskegee airmen, but I don't think accuracy is going to be a headliner for this one.

[Dowly]

The combat looked ridiculous. Not only the über 262's, but check the insta-turn
the 51 does taking out the 262. :rotfl2:

[Oberon]

The combat looked ridiculous. Not only the über 262's, but check the insta-turn
the 51 does taking out the 262. :rotfl2:

I know, I was waiting for the wings to come off...:haha:

[Schöneboom]

Looks like a big-budget version of HBO's "The Tuskegee Airmen" (1995). Funny, Cuba Gooding Jr.'s in both versions (this time he's a major). The CGI aerial combat reminds me of Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor".

[Jimbuna]

Good use of CGI I thought...looking forward to seeing it :yep:

[Platapus]

I cringe when I see the words "Inspired by a true story". That's worse than "based on a true story".

Why could they not make a movie on the actual history of the 332nd FG? :salute:

I guess history and the truth is not entertaining enough these days. :nope:

[Dowly]

I guess history and the truth is not entertaining enough these days. :nope:

The popularity of shows such as Deadliest Warrior would indicate so. :nope:

[TLAM Strike]

I guess history and the truth is not entertaining enough these days. :nope:

There are entire channels dedicated to that philosophy now, like...
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7770/historychannellogo.gif
Aliens, Pawnshops, the Apocalypse and trying to sell crappy computer games is way more important than history and truth... :roll:

[Buddahaid]

Another possibly entertaining movie I'll never watch due to stupid CGI graphics that defy all reality for cheap thrills. This is the spawn of console gaming's action for action's sake and made for little boys to have wet dreams over. Star Wars has more integrity!

[Platapus]

There are entire channels dedicated to that philosophy now, like...
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7770/historychannellogo.gif
Aliens, Pawnshops, the Apocalypse and trying to sell crappy computer games is way more important than history and truth... :roll:


Fortunately, I am old enough to remember the days when the History Channel had actual historical programs. :har:

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, the CGI looks great, the plane handling sucks. That's what happens when people don't consult the right experts. I'm sure I'll see it on the first day, just like I did Flyboys. I just hope I won't be as disappointed.

The comparison with Tuskegee Airmen is good, especially since it's the only possible one (except of course the true story). I did like seeing them start off in P-40s though.

[Schöneboom]

I'll give it a chance, too. I'm always skeptical about WW2 movies, knowing how Hollywood does history -- the way Debbie Does Dallas, if you get my drift. As long as they got a decent writer... hey, stranger things have happened!

[Bubblehead1980]

I am sure the low budget HBO movie starring Lawrence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr, and Andre Braugher(as Lt Col Benjamin O Davis) is much better from the acting to historical accuracy although the cast of Red Tails looks promising.

Why no one in hollywood picks up the story of the Barb, Tang, Wahoo, Halibut(extra dramatic) is beyond me or a movie about Fluckey, Morton, O Kane, Cutter themselves etc would be great.Either way, glad they are making this movie.

[Biggles]

Yeah the planes are somewhat more agile than the real counterparts...but you can't have everything I guess...it sure as hell looks more accurate than that Flyboys movie...Nieruport 17s duking it out with Fokker DR.I's? (Which, coincidentally, are all painted in red a lá Red Baron?)

[Growler]

It's dramatic. It's aircraft. It's air combat. It's Hollywood. And it's got that blockbuster bang-boom look of it in the trailer. I'll go.

If it gets just ONE kid - ONE teenager - ONE adult - interested in these aircraft and these men enough to go to an airfield or a museum and see the real thing, talk to the real guys, before it's too late to do so...

...then it will have been totally worth it.

[Stealhead]

I agree with Growler Hollywood makes movies to entertain the masses there is no reason to expect any movie to 100% accurate the goal is to entertain people.

Any film that gets people interested is a good thing.I am willing to bet that many many history buffs got introduced by some Hollywood style show or movie.What got me into to military history was Black Sheep Squadron re-runs that I saw when I was around 10.That show is rather inaccurate ans stylized but I liked it and it got me interested.Another show was MASH also not that accurate but again it got me interested a third show was Tour of Duty again not the most accurate but it got me interested and got my father talking about Vietnam when he had not in years.

I bet you that there are young men that played Call of Duty:Black Ops and the SOG in it and wanted to find out the real story about them.

[Osmium Steele]

It's dramatic. It's aircraft. It's air combat. It's Hollywood. And it's got that blockbuster bang-boom look of it in the trailer. I'll go.

If it gets just ONE kid - ONE teenager - ONE adult - interested in these aircraft and these men enough to go to an airfield or a museum and see the real thing, talk to the real guys, before it's too late to do so...

...then it will have been totally worth it.

+1 :up:

[Jimbuna]

It's dramatic. It's aircraft. It's air combat. It's Hollywood. And it's got that blockbuster bang-boom look of it in the trailer. I'll go.

If it gets just ONE kid - ONE teenager - ONE adult - interested in these aircraft and these men enough to go to an airfield or a museum and see the real thing, talk to the real guys, before it's too late to do so...

...then it will have been totally worth it.

Yeah, I'll go along with that but the first priority of the movie is that it entertains!!

[nikimcbee]

I cringe when I see the words "Inspired by a true story". That's worse than "based on a true story".

Why could they not make a movie on the actual history of the 332nd FG? :salute:

I guess history and the truth is not entertaining enough these days. :nope:

Dammit, you stole my thunder:damn::haha:.

It's based on a true story, meaning it has WW2 equipment.

I was going to say, is this the prequel to "Hart's War?"

On a side note, kinda tired of the hollywood "race-baiting" flicks:yawn:

[GT182]

It's dramatic. It's aircraft. It's air combat. It's Hollywood. And it's got that blockbuster bang-boom look of it in the trailer. I'll go.

If it gets just ONE kid - ONE teenager - ONE adult - interested in these aircraft and these men enough to go to an airfield or a museum and see the real thing, talk to the real guys, before it's too late to do so...

...then it will have been totally worth it.

Xs 2. :yeah: Couldn't have said it any better.

[Reece]

Looks like scenes from 3D Mark03, or very similar!!:yep:
Definitely be watching that one!! (Blu-Ray):yeah:

[Anthony W.]

I know, I was waiting for the wings to come off...:haha:

You know, in instances, a tail slide like that was possible...

The uber 262 was BS tho

And you're awesome. I love finding other people who know that the P-51 wasn't some uber UFO.

[Stealhead]

Most people who know something about military aviation would know that the P-51 was no uber UFO that really should not be so surprising to you unless you don't talk to many folks that are into the sames things you are.

Again though it is a movie and movies are supposed to entertain and excite people and those type maneuvers are more exciting to watch than a P-51 pulling a boom and zoom which lets be honest is a little boring accurate as it may be more fun in IL-2 but not everyone plays sims either and would not get the excitement I might get from having "pulled off" boom and zoom kills in IL-2 you want it to be fun to a lay person.From what they show it looks like they tried to balance the maneuvering it is not 100% accurate but not way over the top either.

You have to view things objectively Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite films ever but I also know that compared to factual Vietnam it is very unrealistic.

Now if I wanted to get really nit picky I could say "I wont watch this movie unless they fly according to real life physics,Fly the correct model P-40,Fly the P-51B/C in most of the movie and fly the P-51D only in the last half.Thing is if you are nit picky about everything you will end up enjoying nothing I am saying this in general not specifically to Anthony W.

And like I said before a movie like this will attract some people to find out the real story on the Tuskegee airmen,WWII aviation,WWII so on and so forth most people with half a brain know when they are seeing Hollywood for fun for excitement type things and when they are seeing something realistic.Movies are a temporary escape form reality from you troubles,fears.

[Sailor Steve]

You know, in instances, a tail slide like that was possible...
Not as dramatic as they made it look. That one shot made it look like it could outturn a biplane.

I love finding other people who know that the P-51 wasn't some uber UFO.
Too bad you guys weren't here a couple of years ago. I went 'round and 'round with a guy who insisted that the Mustang was worlds better than anything else in the sky. I couldn't make him understand that the P-51's claim to fame was that it was the only single-engined fighter with the range to escort bombers from England to Berlin and back again. It was marginally faster than the late-model Bf.109s, and the turn radius was about the same. In return the 109G-10 and K models could outclimb the Mustang and rolled faster. The Germans were also limited to 85-octane fuel. If they could have gotten our 100-octane they may have been just as fast.

But we'll never know. I hate it when they make planes do things they shouldn't, but hey, it's got planes in it, so they'll get my money. Once. More will depend on how well they pull it off.

[Hottentot]

P-51 won teh war! (*Runs away from the angry IL-2 Luftwhiners giggling like a maniac*)

Seriously speaking, I remember fondly when I frequented Ubisoft's IL-2 forums as a lurker and there were many discussions concerning the plane and how it compared to its counterparts. The best comment I remember from those discussions was someone saying along the lines: "Of course, no matter from whom you ask, you will hear that their plane was the best and could do anything. Those who might disagree aren't here anymore."

[Anthony W.]

P-51 won teh war! (*Runs away from the angry IL-2 Luftwhiners giggling like a maniac*)

Seriously speaking, I remember fondly when I frequented Ubisoft's IL-2 forums as a lurker and there were many discussions concerning the plane and how it compared to its counterparts. The best comment I remember from those discussions was someone saying along the lines: "Of course, no matter from whom you ask, you will hear that their plane was the best and could do anything. Those who might disagree aren't here anymore."

B-29 won the war if any plane.

And, yeah, it did make it look like it could out turn a biplane.

"Inverted rolling reversal" comes to mind when I think of something like that.

If you jerked the controls back quick enough, your tail would slide very well. The issue with that and the movie is that it'd also bring your airspeed to 0 and you'd drop like a rock.

IL-2 FTW!

[Raptor1]

In IL-2 the thing is an even bigger stall monkey than the Fw 190 Dora, flying it is guaranteed to get you into a spiraling death in less time than it takes for a 262 to explode on the runway. :yep:

Well, while the P-51 hardly won the war, and I'm not really that big a fan of it (The P-39 and P-63, those were awesome!), it worked very well in its intended role as a long range escort fighter.

[Anthony W.]

In IL-2 the thing is an even bigger stall monkey than the Fw 190 Dora, flying it is guaranteed to get you into a spiraling death in less time than it takes for a 262 to explode on the runway. :yep:

Well, while the P-51 hardly won the war, and I'm not really that big a fan of it (The P-39 and P-63, those were awesome!), it worked very well in its intended role as a long range escort fighter.

In IL-2 all planes fly like Russian planes. They have this little lag before they stall, and a tail slide is physically impossible. We're just learning the aerodynamic and flight modeling system. Our biggest leap yet is the fire and forget missile system and having broken the sound barrier.

[Dowly]

In IL-2 all planes fly like Russian planes.

Except the I-16, that one's a UFO. :har:

[HunterICX]

Oh boy...it sure does look like a horrid piece of crap to endure. :down:
like the show Dogfights making it to the big screen *pukes*

You have to view things objectively Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite films ever but I also know that compared to factual Vietnam it is very unrealistic.

Apocalypse now had at least a story that it was telling, developed characters and effort was put in the film.

HunterICX

[Growler]

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.

As to the Mustang debate - OK, it was Yeager's plane. It was sleek, it was smexy, it went fast. And it had a radial engine with dangerously exposed cooling systems that turned it into a lawn dart if they were holed. The early models had rotten visibility and an even worse engine. No one seems to remember that it was a British engine that turned the 'stang from a mediocre performer to a superstar... that owes part of its fame to the fact that it could hang with the other famous a/c of the period, the B17 - which was actually second in performance to the B24.

If I had to pick an a/c to fly, it'd be the FW-190 D-9... for whatever reason, I always thought of that a/c as the Porsche of the sky.

[HunterICX]

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.

Perhaps with kids you must make some sacrifice, as you said it might awaken their interest in historical things...it's a bit of a pitty that their introduction is a movie where little effort has been put into to make it a bit more worthwhile to watch for a broader audiences.

HunterICX

[Growler]

Perhaps with kids you must make some sacrifice, as you said it might awaken their interest in historical things...it's a bit of a pitty that their introduction is a movie where little effort has been put into to make it a bit more worthwhile to watch for a broader audiences.

HunterICX

I totally agree, but in lieu of that, I'll take what I can get. And by "kid" I'm really referring to anyone under the age of about 20 years - youthful enough to be interested, but not so young as to not yet possess the cognitive ability to understand and question.

And we must face the truth - the average American (who is, ultimately, the audience that Hollywood created this movie for) has the attention span of a gnat and the memory of a goldfish, so our earnest young hopefuls will already self-identify and stand out above the crowd.

I'll admit a bias to the exceptional - I don't want to babysit, I want to teach.

[frau kaleun]

Apocalypse now had at least a story that it was telling, developed characters and effort was put in the film.

HunterICX

That's because it was a film adaptation of a classic, compelling work of literary fiction written by someone who could actually tell a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either. :DL

Using the Vietnam conflict as a backdrop instead of colonial Africa was a stroke of genius... it made the film resonate for a late 20th century audience in a way that the original setting might not have done. For American audiences, at least.

[the_tyrant]

That's because it was a film adaptation of a classic, compelling work of literary fiction written by someone who could actually tell a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either. :DL

Using the Vietnam conflict as a backdrop instead of colonial Africa was a stroke of genius... it made the film resonate for a late 20th century audience in a way that the original setting might not have done. For American audiences, at least.

I insist the book is much better.

the story line just doesn't fit as well with a cold war conflict
and i prefer African scenery over se Asian scenery

[Hottentot]

Ah, I still found it. This used to go around the forums years ago...

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2893/p51x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/p51x.jpg/)

[Dowly]

"Won teh war!" :har:

[frau kaleun]

I insist the book is much better.


I didn't say it wasn't. However the book is a book, any film adaptation is just that - a film. Apples and oranges.

the story line just doesn't fit as well with a cold war conflict
and i prefer African scenery over se Asian scenery

Personal preferences aside, I still maintain that for American audiences of that generation, just the setting - and indeed the very word "Vietnam" - triggers something that the original setting of the story would not. IMO it has less to do with the realities of the conflict over there (at least for those who did not serve in it) and more to do with the resultant wound to the collective national psyche which was still very fresh at the time.

At any rate Vietnam as a "real" place and "real" conflict is just the stepping off point... as is the case with the original story, the journey is one into the realm of the unknown, the ancient, the primal... a metaphysical reality that is, in the end, irrelevant to geography.

[HunterICX]

And we must face the truth - the average American (who is, ultimately, the audience that Hollywood created this movie for) has the attention span of a gnat and the memory of a goldfish, so our earnest young hopefuls will already self-identify and stand out above the crowd.


Pretty much the same here in Europe if you lose their attention for just a short bit they're back on their I-phones/smart phones texting, twittering, hyves, facebook, myspace etc etc. It seems for them things are not going fast enough already :nope:

HunterICX

[Anthony W.]

The have done a lot to fix the P-51 in IL-2

Other than it's stall characteristics, it flies almost right.

They under model the 50 cals tho. I put a 5 second burst in right on the wings at convergence, and no joy. He ran. You have to hit the engine to do anything.

[Hottentot]

Ah, the memories...or nightmares.

[Oberon]

Heh, you're telling me:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/117/20062011231449.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9776/20062011231836.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

And it had a radial engine with dangerously exposed cooling systems that turned it into a lawn dart if they were holed.
It was an inline V-12. Radial engines have no liquid cooling system. Radials are used by the P-47 and all US Naval Aircraft. But you're right that the Mustang had the liquid cooling with all its problems and dangers. So did the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Bf-109.

The early models had rotten visibility
As did the early Spitfire, the early Bf-109 and all Hurricanes.

and an even worse engine.
The Allison wasn't that bad. Just not as good as the Merlin. P-38's did alright with them. Not great, but alright.

No one seems to remember that it was a British engine that turned the 'stang from a mediocre performer to a superstar...
Now you're condescending. Everyone who loves aviation history knows that.

...that owes part of its fame to the fact that it could escort the heavy bombers all the way to Germany and back, which no other single-engined fighter could do.
Fixed

If I had to pick an a/c to fly, it'd be the FW-190 D-9... for whatever reason, I always thought of that a/c as the Porsche of the sky.
I'd pick any of them. I love them all.

[Platapus]

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.


That is an interesting rational for seeing a movie.

What are the odds of "this kid" meeting you and asking specific questions about the movie that you could only answer if you saw the movie?

Would there be any questions about aircraft that you could not answer without seeing the movie? I don't think so.

If a mythical kid would ever come up to me and say "boy in that movie it was great, that P-40 went straight up and almost broke the sound barrier" I would be able to correct the kid without ever seeing the movie.

I would not have to see the erroneous scene to be able to explain reality to the kid.

Come to think about it, in my 50 years, I can't remember any kid coming up to me and asking me about any historical movie. At least not the kids in my neighbourhood.

So I am not following you on how seeing the movie is necessary to be able to answer any questions some mythical kid might have.

See the movie if you want to, but to justify it as necessary to be prepared to answer some kids question at some time is a bit far fetched. :)

[Oberon]

The Dora may have been the Porsche...but the P-51 was definitely the Cadillac. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Comparing a FW-190 to a Porsche? More like a Bentley. :O:
:rotfl2:

[Oberon]

I guess that makes the Zero a Koenigsegg. Fast, swift...but most likely to end up driving backwards through the Pearly Gates in a ball of fire... :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

What was the best plane is very objective and depends on theater and the situation of the user.The P-39 was a very poor fighter in the west because its Allison engine was not designed for high altitude combat a common occurrence in the West but not something that American designers where focused on in the late 30's very early 40's.

In the East however combat was more rare above about 15,000ft this altitude and below suited the P-39 well and was not as well suited by The BF-109 and at this level the two planes where much more closely matched and it then boiled down to pilot and unit skill to highly important but for some reason often over looked factors of air to air combat.The unit that has the better overall pilot skill and coordination is gong to be the winner most times.By the time the P-39 was becoming common in the USSR(mid 1943) the Luftwaffe was sending many units to the West and leaving Easter units with less to fight with.

The same can be said of the P-51 by the time the B model was showing up on the scene the Luftwaffe had already been suffering some losses to P-47s and which got replaced by the P-51B or later in most wings except the 56th which flew various P-47 versions for the duration.The P-51B up was really bad news for Germans not because it was the best from a maneuverability stand point it was bad news because now the Americans where able to engage and destroy Luftwaffe fighters anywhere they so desired and the P-51s where causing an attrition rate on skilled pilots that the Germans could ill afford.While fresh and much better trained compared to their German counterparts for the same time in service where showing up from the US every single week and the Luftwaffe could do nothing to stop this.In my opinion one factor that killed the Luftwaffe was it lack of pilot rotation many skilled pilots died and never passed on their skills to new pilots while many US,British and Soviet where being out to much better use some of the time by allowing them to train others.

I read an interview of a former Tuskegee and he explained the reason that the Tuskegee units performed so well was because they went though much harsher training than others did.They could kicked out for slightest infraction and in some respects they tried to make them more likely to fail than others(because some had the agenda for them to fail no matter what) the result was that they where pretty damn good pilots(if they passed they really and truly passed) and they also wanted to perform well in order to prove themselves to doubters.He said that one guy got kicked out of the program because he did not respond immediately in the proper manner to a question so they dropped him.Yet a few weeks later they hired the same man as a civilian instructor pilot and he trained other men.:hmmm:

[Dowly]

*snip*

Pretty much that.

Or, one could even go as far as to say that the Luftwaffe was never truly ready
for a prolonged war.

The High Command thought the war would be a quick one, so the production
of aircraft in high numbers and having a steady flow of fresh well trained pilots
was of secondary importance.

Only when the losses of both aircraft and pilots started to rise rapidly from 1943 onwards, the HC decided to re-prioritize. But, of course, too late.

Total aircraft production figures from "The Luftwaffe and Its War of Attrition":

1940 - 10,247
1941 - 12,401
1942 - 15,409
1943 - 24,807
1944 - 40,593
1945 - 7,539

[Growler]

It was an inline V-12. Radial engines have no liquid cooling system. Radials are used by the P-47 and all US Naval Aircraft. But you're right that the Mustang had the liquid cooling with all its problems and dangers. So did the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Bf-109.

*checks* *doubletakes* Jeez. I really did type radial there. I know better than that.

As to visibility, all I can say is that until the Merlin went in and the bubble canopy was installed, the -51 was on par with other aircraft at the time - maybe slightly better.


The Allison wasn't that bad. Just not as good as the Merlin. P-38's did alright with them. Not great, but alright.
Not bad in an inline at the time for a single-engine fighter was a heck of a risk to take on. If I had to choose between a single inline Allison versus a Wright-Cyclone - I'd take the radial every time - I'd rather trade some airspeed for some durability.


Now you're condescending. Everyone who loves aviation history knows that. Not meaning to be condescending at all.


I'd pick any of them. I love them all.

True that. My comment was only intended to be taken in the "If I had only one chance to pick what would be under my Christmas tree..." vein.


That is an interesting rational for seeing a movie.

What are the odds of "this kid" meeting you and asking specific questions about the movie that you could only answer if you saw the movie?

Would there be any questions about aircraft that you could not answer without seeing the movie? I don't think so.

If a mythical kid would ever come up to me and say "boy in that movie it was great, that P-40 went straight up and almost broke the sound barrier" I would be able to correct the kid without ever seeing the movie.

I would not have to see the erroneous scene to be able to explain reality to the kid.

Come to think about it, in my 50 years, I can't remember any kid coming up to me and asking me about any historical movie. At least not the kids in my neighbourhood.

So I am not following you on how seeing the movie is necessary to be able to answer any questions some mythical kid might have.

See the movie if you want to, but to justify it as necessary to be prepared to answer some kids question at some time is a bit far fetched. :)

Guess I shouldn't bother trying. Not my day for communication, apparently.

[Stealhead]

Another over looked key to air to air combat: how well a pilot knows what his aircraft can do at a given altitude situation(turn,roll,climb as well) how well one can get his plane to perform at its given situation best and what his foes mounts abilities are in a given situation.

I always hate when people x was better at climbing x plane was better at picking up French hookers without crabs.....when the truth is each different plane performed different in situations one plane might be better a given altitude at say climbing but worse 10,000ft higher or 10,000ft lower than its "sweet spot" and the opposing plane might be better at those points.The skilled pilot would try to force his foe to fly inside his performance envelope and outside his foes the more the better.

[IonicRipper]

Coming out this Friday, so whos going to see it? :D

I cant wait, i think it has the potential to be the best movie i'll see this year!
... Or it could be filled with Hollywood BS and be ruined but from the trailers it looks good.

[USS Drum]

I saw Warhorse and it's definitively better there's no super 262s in it.

[IonicRipper]

How can you say its better if you havnt seen Redtails yet? :hmmm:

[USS Drum]

The trailer.

[krashkart]

That's because it was a film adaptation of a classic, compelling work of literary fiction written by someone who could actually tell a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either. :DL

Using the Vietnam conflict as a backdrop instead of colonial Africa was a stroke of genius... it made the film resonate for a late 20th century audience in a way that the original setting might not have done. For American audiences, at least.

I learn something new every day. All I knew was that it was over budget, way over deadline, and a damn fine movie that leaves me chuckling at inappropriate moments. :yep:


The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either. :DL

Quoted [again] for truth. Thank you. :up:

[IonicRipper]

The trailer.

How can you base your opinion of a whole movie on a trailer?

Haven't you ever heard not to judge a book by its cover?

[TarJak]

How can you base your opinion of a whole movie on a trailer?

Haven't you ever heard not to judge a book by its cover?
Isn't the point of a trailer to give the viewer an impression of what the movie is like so they can determine whether its something they want to see? Most people base an opinion of a movie on the trailer before watching the full deal. Sometimes that opinion is correct sometimes not.

[krashkart]

I base most of my opinions about books simply by looking at the cover. If the layout is visually appealing I buy it immediately, regardless of the book's actual content. If, however, the cover is plain and boring, like for instance the cover of FM 71-2 Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force (http://www.amazon.com/3-90-2-Mechanized-Infantry-Battalion-Force/dp/B0006FN2SG) (my copy was OD green), I shower the book with disgust and verbal abuse, attempt to set it aflame with a menacing scowl (which never seems to work), then look around at the other customers and implore them as to exactly why they are staring at me.

I do exactly the same thing with movies. If the trailer assaults my eyes with barrage after barrage of visual goodness and sparkly fireworks, I know in my heart that it will be an even greater spectacle of entertainment than the bi-weekly hangin' (and bake sale) we hold in town square, and that it will certainly be worth the trouble of smuggling booze into the theater on opening night. :yep:

However, if the movie trailer evokes even the slightest twinge of intellectual thought, I am much more inclined to eat a jar full of pickled beetle grubs than to put forth the effort of sneaking the six or seven bottles of Thunderbird that it takes to get me started into the theater on opening night.

There is a method to my madness, folks. Trust me; Red Tails will go down in history as the greatest war movie ever seen by man. :03:


Disclaimer: the author of this post does not take this post seriously, nor should you. This public service announcement brought to you by the makers of Thunderbird. Thunderbird: making crazy people rant since... THE DAWN OF TIME!

[IonicRipper]

Isn't the point of a trailer to give the viewer an impression of what the movie is like so they can determine whether its something they want to see? Most people base an opinion of a movie on the trailer before watching the full deal. Sometimes that opinion is correct sometimes not.
But can you really say if a movie is either good or not just from the trailer? I dont think so.

[Jimbuna]

But can you really say if a movie is either good or not just from the trailer? I dont think so.

You can certainly determine if there are two minutes of it you find enjoyable :DL

[IonicRipper]

Actually let me rephrase that... You can definitely know if a movie will be cheesy or not by watching the trailer but you cant really know for sure until you watch it.

I've been deceived numerous times by trailers both in good and in bad ways.

[Schöneboom]

Here's an interview with Lucas about the film:

http://www.geekchicdaily.com/video/goerge-lucas-on-the-daily-show

I'll give it a chance. "Trust the Force!" :DL

[USS Drum]

I just hope it's not a Star Wars type movie because he probably is going to use this as a replacement of the Death Star:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

[CaptainMattJ.]

like we need another movie about the tuskegee airman, and especially not some flyboy-type hollywood spoof. They want to make a movie about the tuskegee airmen? How bout sticking to what happened, and leave the ridiculous stunts out of it.

My grandfather was 1 transfer away from being in the 8th. Thankfully he wasnt. He ended up being a flight engineer on C-47s the rest of the war. THe 8th lost so many men and aircraft, took so many hits. And yet i cant find a single movie about them. Thats hollywood for you :-?.

[TLAM Strike]

THe 8th lost so many men and aircraft, took so many hits. And yet i cant find a single movie about them. Thats hollywood for you :-?.

:06:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_O%27Clock_High

Arguably the greatest air combat movie ever made... :shifty:

[krashkart]

:06:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_O%27Clock_High

Arguably the greatest air combat movie ever made... :shifty:

No way man. Iron Eagle III. :yeah:

[soopaman2]

Does this not reek of a "Tuskeegee Airmen" remake? And look at that, just in time for Black History month! Wow, ya think they did that on purpose?!?

Only thing missing is Lawrence Fishburn.

Though it seems alot more action packed, but I am an older movie buff, where dialogue and acting complements the action rather than the other way around. Which is why Michael Bay sucks, and Ridley Scott and Wolfgang Peterson rule.

[Lord_magerius]

That would probably be because it's the same story ;)

[TLAM Strike]

No way man. Iron Eagle III. :yeah:

Behind Enemy Lines FTW!


:O:

[soopaman2]

That would probably be because it's the same story ;)


I know that, What killed it for me is that Cuba Gooding Jr is in both movies.

I will always think of Tuskeegee Airmen as I watch this, which was my point. And yes I will watch this movie. These men were highly underrated as aviators, and deserve respect. The thinking at the time (and now in some places) is that the black man is an inferior race. These men showed they were equal, if not better. (they were truly stellar in Italy)

I just hope this movie wasn't raped by Hollywood. The original was (an HBO movie right?:hmmm: I so forgot) very classy, and a proper mix of action, and superb acting.

Please do not take my being critical as negativity, or taking away from these heroes.:)

[IonicRipper]

I just hope it's not a Star Wars type movie because he probably is going to use this as a replacement of the Death Star:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

Or a Zeppelin for that matter

[soopaman2]

I just hope it's not a Star Wars type movie because he probably is going to use this as a replacement of the Death Star:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

Albert Speer was a genius for killing this project. Something like this would have served no strategic value, outside of defending Berlin for a few more days.

Thanks for that USS Drum. I never knew about such hardware.
It would have changed other battles for sure. It was just in line with other German tech at the time, too complicated to be mass produced.

[TLAM Strike]

Albert Speer was a genius for killing this project.
:hmmm:

It took a genius to realize that a mobile land fort might not be the best idea in the world? :doh:

[USS Drum]

Well it does have an impressive speed for something that big.

[Sailor Steve]

Does this not reek of a "Tuskeegee Airmen" remake?
Actually rumors of a this movie (or a similar project with the same name) were circulating long before Tuskegee Airmen was announced.

[IonicRipper]

Seems you guys were right, i am so disappointed :(

Review: The laudable 'Red Tails' misses its target (http://news.yahoo.com/review-laudable-red-tails-misses-target-221645362.html)

Im still gonna go watch it because im a sucker for WWII movies but i was really hoping for something good *snif*

At least the scenes are nice apparently... so its not all bad, right? ...Right? :damn:

[Task Force]

Albert Speer was a genius for killing this project. Something like this would have served no strategic value, outside of defending Berlin for a few more days.

Thanks for that USS Drum. I never knew about such hardware.
It would have changed other battles for sure. It was just in line with other German tech at the time, too complicated to be mass produced.

Well the biggest issue with the thing is that it would probably break in the factory, they had enough issues with the tigers chassis. lol

[USS Drum]

Well they did make something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

[TLAM Strike]

Well they did make something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
Was never finished. The two tanks they built were a functioning chassis and a mockup turret and a mock up chassis and a functioning turret. The Russians were the ones to put the two halfs together and built a working tank.

(I have a 1/72 Maus on my desk :03: )

[Task Force]

Well they did make something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

Just think if they made that thing in complete kinda working order.

"Hey Hans look at our new tank"

"Ja, it is quite big"

"Ok Fritz, we must head off to the battle"

(starts)

"Ok, lets move"

(revs up abit, puts into first gear! sounds promising!!!)

and it stalls...

[TLAM Strike]

Just think if they made that thing in complete kinda working order.

"Hey Hans look at our new tank"

"Ja, it is quite big"

"Ok Fritz, we must head off to the battle"

(starts)

"Ok, lets move"

(revs up abit, puts into first gear! sounds promising!!!)

and it stalls...

No worries the Soviets would come to them eventually. ;)

[USS Drum]

Was never finished. The two tanks they built were a functioning chassis and a mockup turret and a mock up chassis and a functioning turret. The Russians were the ones to put the two halfs together and built a working tank.

(I have a 1/72 Maus on my desk :03: )

:06:https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHk9UMsGm6CWOR6gz3k8dYlqXDnzcZX 3FrCPuvZeQPvmyPrQlfQw

[Schöneboom]

I saw "Red Tails" today and enjoyed it on its own terms. The film is aimed at teenage boys, circa 1950. Lucas wasn't kidding, the tone is exactly like "Flying Leathernecks"! A peculiar creative choice, for sure, but I take my WW2 dogfights where I can get 'em. If you need realistic flight models and historical accuracy, this ain't the place. It's full arcade mode here.

[Krauter]

@ soopaman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VII_Löwe

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster

[krashkart]

(I have a 1/72 Maus on my desk :03: )

How do you move the cursor around with such a tiny maus? :06:

[moose1am]

There are entire channels dedicated to that philosophy now, like...
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7770/historychannellogo.gif
Aliens, Pawnshops, the Apocalypse and trying to sell crappy computer games is way more important than history and truth... :roll:

The History Channel use to be one of my favorite channels on TV until they took all the military stuff out of it and put it on the Military Channel.

Now all the history channel has is "PICKERS" and that's boring compared to what the History Channel used to have.

Seeing the Promo for Red Tails makes me wish that Fighter Ace had not gone out of business. I doubt it will ever be brought back to life with the current folks who own the rights to it now. They have the willpower but not the money or the expertise. It's a shame too.

But I do agree that some of the loops were unrealistict to say the least.

P51D had a great view and that's an advantage but what they really had over the Germans was numbers and long range. :yeah:

[moose1am]

I am sure the low budget HBO movie starring Lawrence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr, and Andre Braugher(as Lt Col Benjamin O Davis) is much better from the acting to historical accuracy although the cast of Red Tails looks promising.

Why no one in hollywood picks up the story of the Barb, Tang, Wahoo, Halibut(extra dramatic) is beyond me or a movie about Fluckey, Morton, O Kane, Cutter themselves etc would be great.Either way, glad they are making this movie.

I'd love to see some movies about those WWII submarine boats.

[moose1am]

The have done a lot to fix the P-51 in IL-2

Other than it's stall characteristics, it flies almost right.

They under model the 50 cals tho. I put a 5 second burst in right on the wings at convergence, and no joy. He ran. You have to hit the engine to do anything.

Do you play IL2 online still? Sounds more like the damage modeling is in need of a tweek.

6 fifty cals converging at 800 ft should schred just about any plane or explode it with incindinary/armer piercing ammo.

[Sailor Steve]

6 fifty cals converging at 800 ft should schred just about any plane or explode it with incindinary/armer piercing ammo.
"Should". A machine gun is much like a shotgun. At anything further than point blank range the vibration causes bullets to go pretty much everwhere but where they're aimed. I've fired .50s, and it's pretty funny to watch. The cute sewing-machine-like stitching seen in movies is nothing like the real deal.

Adding more guns compounds the problem. The sympathetic vibration transmitted from the guns to the wing makes the wing itself shake, and this is transmitted back to each gun, causing them to vibrate in odd directions. More bullets overall are put out in the general direction of the target, but less bullets from any single gun actually hit. Still, the trade-off was obviously worth it.

Couple that with the fact that an enemy plane is rarely sitting still in relation to the shooter, and it takes a very good pilot to shoot down his opponent with a single burst.

[Schöneboom]

Speaking of arcade mode: Here is the same trick maneuver shown in "Red Tails", attributed to the German squadron leader "Pretty Boy", then copied by the American hotshot, Joe "Lightning" Little:

http://youtu.be/TuipnDc7dms

Years ago I pulled a stunt similar to this in European Air War, in a Hurricane. Those were the days! :woot:

[Jimbuna]

BANG!!!....YOUR DEAD!!!

[MH]

"Should". A machine gun is much like a shotgun. .
Not that bad and not laser beam either.
0.5 well stabilized on tripod should shred any thing at 800ft.
On aircraft wing,i don't know but should work better than tripod i think.
Its one of its merits-the accuracy.

[Sailor Steve]

Speaking of arcade mode: Here is the same trick maneuver shown in "Red Tails", attributed to the German squadron leader "Pretty Boy", then copied by the American hotshot, Joe "Lightning" Little.
Commonly called a stall turn. As described a very effective but potentially disastrous maneuver. As shown it the graphic absolutely impossible. The plane needs to climb until it is almost out of speed, followed by an intentional controlled stall. If they did it that way in the movie then they didn't talk to any pilots who've actually done it.

Not that bad and not laser beam either.
0.5 well stabilized on tripod should shred any thing at 800ft.
On aircraft wing,i don't know but should work better than tripod i think.
Its one of its merits-the accuracy.
Yes that bad. The barrel is rifled. As the bullet travels down it the barrel vibrates in a circular pattern. The next bullet is fired almost instantly, and is affected by the rotation already imparted. Yes, a tripod-mounted gun will shred anything at 800 feet, not because of its accuracy but because of the volume of lead being sprayed over the whole area. The chance of an individual being hit by automatic fire is fairly low.

The same is true with airborne guns, except that the plane itself is also bouncing around. The the more guns, the less the accuracy. This is offset by the fact that six times as many bullet are filling the area. It becomes a statistical game. Don't think for a second I'm dissing the .50, or it's use in aircraft. It was an effective, devastating weapon. First, though, you have to hit the target. The Germans did just as well with a single MG151/20 and two MG131s, all mounted in the nose.

[MH]

Yes that bad. The barrel is rifled. As the bullet travels down it the barrel vibrates in a circular pattern. The next bullet is fired almost instantly, and is affected by the rotation already imparted. Yes, a tripod-mounted gun will shred anything at 800 feet, not because of its accuracy but because of the volume of lead being sprayed over the whole area. The chance of an individual being hit by automatic fire is fairly low.

As much as i remember the spread area is not very big at those distances.
I got to shoot this gun occasionally at rusty vehicles at the range-that's my experience with this gun.

I was thinking about effectiveness when one gets the correct aim not about the difficulty in doing so in fast airplane which was tricky under combat conditions.
So obviously the more guns you have correctly aimed at this split second the more lead gets to the target.

To my knowledge having the guns in the nose made it easier to put most bullets in a target without worrying about the range vs focus point therefore it sort of compensated sometimes.
With the cannon one or two hits could be enough.
It probably also made for more stable platform than wing under load.:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

As much as i remember the spread area is not very big at those distances.
I got to shoot this gun occasionally at rusty vehicles at the range-that's my experience with this gun.
As I said, I've shot them too. What I remember is watching targets while others shot, usually at 100 yards. For every bullet that hit the target five or six hit all around it. Of course a one-second burst puts out about 12 rounds total which would mean only 2 or 3 hit a man-sized target. Assuming a solidly mounted gun would double that, it would indicate 4-6 hits on the target at 100 yards. That is devestating. That's plenty for a man. Six guns would put out 72 rounds in one second, maybe more. At the same ratio that would imply as many as 30 hits on the target at 100 yards. Even if factoring in vibration problems that would indeed shred an aluminum aircraft. At 300 yards, however, the problem is compounded, even more so if there's any deflection involved.

About 5% of all pilots scored 95% of the kills. Gun camera footage seems to show that most "shredding" shots come from very close. Longer-range shots, even with the guns sighted for "convergence" it starts to come down to random chance how many bullets hit where they were aimed. It's much like naval gunnery, which in World War 2 had an average hit rate of about 7%.

I think the six-fifty combination is just fine, because a good pilot is able to shoot at 200 feet, not 800, and at that range the mass of bullets is indeed devestating.

[moose1am]

I haver not seen the movie so I don't necessaryily agree with you. If I like you judged the movie from just the trailer I'd have to rate it below par. But I don't rate movies like that. I prefer to watch them in full before I review them. But that's just the way I do things. :yeah:


I base most of my opinions about books simply by looking at the cover. If the layout is visually appealing I buy it immediately, regardless of the book's actual content. If, however, the cover is plain and boring, like for instance the cover of FM 71-2 Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force (http://www.amazon.com/3-90-2-Mechanized-Infantry-Battalion-Force/dp/B0006FN2SG) (my copy was OD green), I shower the book with disgust and verbal abuse, attempt to set it aflame with a menacing scowl (which never seems to work), then look around at the other customers and implore them as to exactly why they are staring at me.

I do exactly the same thing with movies. If the trailer assaults my eyes with barrage after barrage of visual goodness and sparkly fireworks, I know in my heart that it will be an even greater spectacle of entertainment than the bi-weekly hangin' (and bake sale) we hold in town square, and that it will certainly be worth the trouble of smuggling booze into the theater on opening night. :yep:

However, if the movie trailer evokes even the slightest twinge of intellectual thought, I am much more inclined to eat a jar full of pickled beetle grubs than to put forth the effort of sneaking the six or seven bottles of Thunderbird that it takes to get me started into the theater on opening night.

There is a method to my madness, folks. Trust me; Red Tails will go down in history as the greatest war movie ever seen by man. :03:


Disclaimer: the author of this post does not take this post seriously, nor should you. This public service announcement brought to you by the makers of Thunderbird. Thunderbird: making crazy people rant since... THE DAWN OF TIME!

[Sailor Steve]

After the mediocre reviews I'll probably see it anyway, just because I haven't been to the theater for awhile and I'm a sucker for airplanes. Sometimes ya just gotta!

[MH]

Pew....again i was not talking about the problems and statistics behind air combat.
Similar statistics is true when in comes to ground fire fight.
In nutshell i was saying that 0.5 is highly accurate gun very far from 'shotgun at point blank range' and i hold to this view.

[tater]

The problem with il-2 .50s was the ammo belting. It was almost all ball until modders fixed it. Simply putting in the proper US belting makes a big difference, particularly in the PTO. US belting for aircraft should be almost all API instead of the all ball, with the occasional tracer Oleg gave them (the jap 12.7mm MG in the Oscar was belted with HE rounds, and in many cases playing I found the 2 oscar guns to be more effective than 6 US fifties in the stock game).

[krashkart]

I haver not seen the movie so I don't necessaryily agree with you. If I like you judged the movie from just the trailer I'd have to rate it below par. But I don't rate movies like that. I prefer to watch them in full before I review them. But that's just the way I do things. :yeah:

But the best way to judge anything is to first look at it and determine if it strikes your fancy or not. Just like books, man. Some book covers are awesome to look at, and other book covers are just so bland that one must wonder what form of life could possibly look upon such a travesty without vomiting! The same principle applies to movies. Some movie trailers are worth looking at while others are just boring and/or sappy in a Disney or Ken Burns or Ridley Scott or chick-flick sort of way (et cetera ad nauseum). I have found that the more glorious the movie trailer, the more glorious the movie. If the trailer reeks of unbelievable BS and/or is (most especially) thrown together with a weed whacker, some sparklers and a few gallons of gasoline in Micheal Bay's basement, the movie is most assuredly going to be a hands-down winner with "ALL THUMBS UP, BRO!!" cascading down from even the harshest of critics. :yeah:

Believe me, dude. I know what I are talking about. I'm an movie expert. :smug:

[moose1am]

I found that to be true with another Russian Programmed Game called Fighter Ace. In the beginning of FA 1.0 the P51's 6 fifty cals didn't kill as well as they did later in the game when they uped the firepower on them. There was a lot of discussion like this in the FA forums and eventually they changed the damage that was done by the Fifty's and improved them a lot. A lot of players who use to fly the Me 109 K4 got made as they also downgraded the explosive power of the 30 mm shells and changed their tragectory from lazer accurate to water hose type ballestics. The 30 mm shells were slow and dropped right out of the barrel after firing due to their slow velocities and slower rate of fire.

And the argument about the type of ammo loaded in the belts helped to pursuade the owner and the programmer to change the way they modeled the US Fifty Cals.

The problem with il-2 .50s was the ammo belting. It was almost all ball until modders fixed it. Simply putting in the proper US belting makes a big difference, particularly in the PTO. US belting for aircraft should be almost all API instead of the all ball, with the occasional tracer Oleg gave them (the jap 12.7mm MG in the Oscar was belted with HE rounds, and in many cases playing I found the 2 oscar guns to be more effective than 6 US fifties in the stock game).

[IonicRipper]

Just got around to go watch it and i absolutely loved it, fck the media reviews!

Sure there were some inaccuracies, some over the top scenes and some cheesy moments but i still really enjoyed it.

[soopaman2]

Just got around to go watch it and i absolutely loved it, fck the media reviews!

Sure there were some inaccuracies, some over the top scenes and some cheesy moments but i still really enjoyed it.


Over the top is typical of Lucas. And creative liberties will always be taken in films. Even well regarded movies like Das Boot, and Tora Tora Tora had innaccuracies.

I have yet to see it, but it is on my schedule. These men were very underestimated due to racial problems. But were just as successful, if not near superior to other units during the war.

It kinda means more to me than some other airmens accomplishments, as these men fought for a country who saw them as "nig...(uhh you know)" (I ask that I am excused for nasty word, simply conveying what they were seen as in a blunt matter) When these men were just as valiant, and important to the war effort as anyone else.

And my greatest respect was that they fought for a country that held them (generally) in contempt and as inferior. (at this time)

Thank you airmen for your service.:salute:

[Ducimus]

So, with nothing else worth watching at the local theater, i saw this yesterday on a sunday matinee.

My wife liked it. She wants to get the DVD.

I thought it was OK as a movie. But in a historical context, I think its a crock of excrement. The INSTANT it said, "inspired by true events" at the beginning, i knew i was in for a big shovel full of hollywood. There's a BIG difference between, "inspired by true events", and "based on true events".

Personally, i thought there was too much false/phony bravado. Particuarlly when the squadron being portrayed in this movie, encountered enemy aircraft for the first time. The dialogue in that scene was eye rolling.

[nikimcbee]

I thought it was OK as a movie. But in a historical context, I think its a crock of excrement. The INSTANT it said, "inspired by true events" at the beginning, i knew i was in for a big shovel full of hollywood. There's a BIG difference between, "inspired by true events", and "based on true events".


You mean like U-571:haha:?

I liked the movie more than I thought I would. I did have low expectations for it.:dead: The nit-picky part that I didn't like, was the German evil pilot.:haha: I think Lucas just did a copy-paste from Flyboys.

Lucas was thinking about Platapus when he made the film, as there is a token love story in it.:doh::haha:

[Schöneboom]

Oy, the love story was a huge missed opportunity when I think of how much more could have done with the same screen-time. But being grateful for small mercies: at least it wasn't a wartime love triangle!!

If you can't leave your thinking cap home and get in touch with your inner teenager, better to miss this movie. We don't want anyone's head exploding with rage over historical inaccuracy!

And here's my own review, posted at Epinions:

http://www.epinions.com/review/red-tails/content_577467813508

[Jimbuna]

I thought the movie was okay as far as entertainment value went...not all that historically accurate I agree but I wasn't expecting it to be.

[Ducimus]

I think Lucas just did a copy-paste from Flyboys.


Yeah, the movie was VERY predictable. At one point while watching, there was this lull point of superficial stuff, and i thought to myself, "Hmm, looks like their building up for the big dramatic finish". Looked at my watch, saw it was an hour and a half into the movie, and I knew that i was right. Wife leans over, "I gotta pee!" I said, "If you go now, you wont miss anything, their still building up for the conclusion.". Needless to say, she didn't miss anything. :har:

[nikimcbee]

Yeah, the movie was VERY predictable. At one point while watching, there was this lull point of superficial stuff, and i thought to myself, "Hmm, looks like their building up for the big dramatic finish". Looked at my watch, saw it was an hour and a half into the movie, and I knew that i was right. Wife leans over, "I gotta pee!" I said, "If you go now, you wont miss anything, their still building up for the conclusion.". Needless to say, she didn't miss anything. :har:


I just rolled my eye with the love story and the POW side story. For a moment, I thought Lucas was going to totally get distracted with the POW story:doh:. But they did have the R2D2 moment when the pilot shows up in the end.:haha:

I heard a funny review of the movie, where the reviewer liked the film, but thought Cuba Gooding jr, was too goofy with the pipe all the time.:haha:
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae74/mgb109/NewMGB109/sherlockholmes110914000424-1.jpg