Pearl Harbor - Mystery Science Theater Style!

[Hylander_1314]

Yep, and Flyboys was another Hollywood goes Marvel Comics. Really, even my daughter who was 10 or 11 at the time they released Pearl Harbor, ripped on it at the movie theater. All I did was smile, that's my girl.

[V.C. Sniper]

This movie is an insult.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

The Midway film had many inaccuracies especially with the footage though I guess they had to make do with what they had at the time. With modern CGi they could do it just right.

I liked Tora Tora Tora, though could someone detail the flaws in it.

I liked it too and I think it was well made and at leaste didn't stray into the murky depths that Pearl Harbour did. There are 18 flaws listed here: http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1314

Pearl Harbour has 156 flaws: http://www.moviemistakes.com/film964

Hmmm does that mean movie making was better in 1970 than it was in 2001?:hmm:

[Hylander_1314]

One has to remember also that back when Tora Tora Tora, and Midway, The Battle of Britain, and the Blue Max were made, there was no CG. They had to scrounge whatever planes they could for filming. The Battle of Britain was the best repesented as far as planes went, even though there were no JU-88s, or Do-17s in flying condition for them to use, so the only real flying bombers were the He-111s but they were Spanish built versions as were the Me-109s. Also not all the Spitrires and and Hurricanes were MkI or MkII versions either, but you had to work with what you had in those days. The scenes where the Spitfires of 54 Squadron intercept the Ju-87 Stukas were filmed mostly with R/C Ju-87s. The exception being the scene where a plywood mockup of a Stuka crashes into the radar hut. It was launched from a rail. But even those R/C models were huge. From wingtip to wingtip they measured around 6 feet. Which makes them close to 1/4 scale models. So the model engines could be completely hidden in the fuselage.

Same with Tora Tora Tora, and Midway. How many original Japanese planes were left in flying condition in those days, none. Even the American P-40s and B-17s were all later war variants as there were no early models available to film, and there were no P-36 Hawks around either, (the radial engine variant of the P-40). So with all things considered, I think it's safe to say that Hollywood and European film makers did a better job for the most part before computers muddled things up, and more emphasis is now put on movie eye-candy as opposed to a good story.

Now for an exception, one can say that Dark Blue World is a well done film about the Battle of Britain that's not too old. But it's considered more obscure as it deals with the Czechs who flew in the Battle of Britain. The story is good, and it has good action too.

I'm hoping that the European made film The Red Baron comes to America. It looks like it's been done quite well, with great mockup planes, including Albatros fighters, SPADs, Sopwiths, Se-5s, and Fokker Triplanes. The clips I've seen of the fighting over the trenches is very intense, and confused as it most likely got when large formations of planes got tangled with each other. But that has to do with good CG work, as it would cost a fortune to build 100+ planes for a movie, that would most likely rot after filming was done.

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Guys, it's Hollywood, what else did you expect!?

110% accurate historical authenthic movies?

FORGET IT those kind of movies woldn't sell

I completly understand. However, Pearl Harbors, even if it had been based on fictionnal events, SUCKS. Big time.

Seriously, even without considering the historical innacuracies, the movies a stupid cheesefest of film.