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*

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2893/p51x.jpg

"Won teh war!" :har:

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

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.

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

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.

Ah, the memories...or nightmares.

Heh, you're telling me:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1...2011231449.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/977...2011231836.jpg

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.

As did the early Spitfire, the early Bf-109 and all Hurricanes.

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

Now you're condescending. Everyone who loves aviation history knows that.

Fixed

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

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. :)