Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: (Nit)Pick the Errors in the New "Midway" Poster

  1. #21
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    I've not yet seen a movie where they came close to representing actual aircraft performance with CGI. It all looks fake. Even the "good" ones aren't that good. I'm just gonna watch the 1976 version again and save my money.
    Cheers!

    Joe

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Joda View Post
    I've not yet seen a movie where they came close to representing actual aircraft performance with CGI. It all looks fake. Even the "good" ones aren't that good. I'm just gonna watch the 1976 version again and save my money.
    How 'bout this one:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1_a-DgT7LI4

    Best I've seen and it is probably 10 years old.

  3. #23
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    I appreciate folks' reluctance to accept CGI in aviation movies. As I've mention several times, I don't like how they use it for battle scenes.

    However, there were some scenes in "Midway" I really loved. These were NOT the battle scenes, but shots of the squadrons of Dauntlesses and Devastators flying in formation. Dozens of aircraft that don't exist anymore, each moving slightly and individually as they maintained their positions, the pilots and gunners scanning the skies. THAT was impressive as heck, and looked pretty durn accurate for performance. The takeoff sequences are good; the landings less so (especially a couple of emergency/semi-emergency ones).

    The sad fact is, it's not 1948 anymore. Movie makers can't just phone the Pentagon and get the loan of a few dozen Corsairs or B-17s. Aerial action in WWII was noted by large formations, not the one or two airplanes producers can scare up, now. Sure, there are a couple of dozen P-51s at Oshkosh. But do they have the same paint schemes so that they appear to be from the same squadron? Same models? How many have the TF-51 canopies for the second seats?

    Nope. CGI is the way it's going to be in the future. I wish they'd depict flight more accurately, but at least "Midway" did it a lot better than "Flyboys" did. And like I said, there are several really nice shots, including the panning shot of the carrier at the beginning.

    I paid $6 to see the movie at the matinee show. It was worth it. Probably would have paid full price, if I'd had to....

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #24
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    527
    I have no problem with CGI— Avatar is a great example of taking the time to do it right. Generally Midway didn’t IMO, although there were some scenes I liked there were more that I didn’t. It doesn’t help that I’m a pilot and retired military as I have the typical bias towards certain details. In any event for me it wasn’t just the video game CGI that I didn’t like. Unlike you I paid $18 (2 tickets) not including concessions so I stand by my thumbs down review and recommendation to rent the original instead.
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    EAA Lifetime Member
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  5. #25
    Airmutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NW. Atlanta GA
    Posts
    560
    It’s not so much the quality of the images but the poor understanding of the physics of flight and the incredibly stupid Hollywood portrayal of events that ruins it for me. It doesn’t help when they can’t get technical details of aircraft, vehicles, etc correct either. I’m betting the new Midway is gonna be a flop. I’ll wait until it it hits the cheapo DVD bin at Walmart.
    Dave Shaw
    EAA 67180 Lifetime
    Learn to Build, Build to Fly, Fly for Fun

  6. #26
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Auburntsts View Post
    I have no problem with CGI— Avatar is a great example of taking the time to do it right. Generally Midway didn’t IMO, although there were some scenes I liked there were more that I didn’t. It doesn’t help that I’m a pilot and retired military as I have the typical bias towards certain details. In any event for me it wasn’t just the video game CGI that I didn’t like. Unlike you I paid $18 (2 tickets) not including concessions so I stand by my thumbs down review and recommendation to rent the original instead.
    Avatar worked great because it was fantasy to begin with. It was a great movie and their CGI was fantastic. But.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Airmutt View Post
    It’s not so much the quality of the images but the poor understanding of the physics of flight and the incredibly stupid Hollywood portrayal of events that ruins it for me. It doesn’t help when they can’t get technical details of aircraft, vehicles, etc correct either. I’m betting the new Midway is gonna be a flop. I’ll wait until it it hits the cheapo DVD bin at Walmart.
    This is my gripe with CGI. For something that's REAL, they should be able to depict it accurately. Sure, there aren't a bunch of Dauntless around that they can put together to fly for the movie. But all they need is ONE! Go film it flying around and then use that model to create your CGI airplanes. Make them perform like real airplanes! And don't put them in situations where real airplanes wouldn't go.

    It's so darned easy to pick out which airplanes are CGI and which ones are real in those productions where they mix the two. So why can't they do a better job. I'm guessing it's because it would cost more and they just don't give a sh*t.
    Cheers!

    Joe

  7. #27
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Joda View Post
    Avatar worked great because it was fantasy to begin with. It was a great movie and their CGI was fantastic. But.....



    This is my gripe with CGI. For something that's REAL, they should be able to depict it accurately. Sure, there aren't a bunch of Dauntless around that they can put together to fly for the movie. But all they need is ONE! Go film it flying around and then use that model to create your CGI airplanes. Make them perform like real airplanes! And don't put them in situations where real airplanes wouldn't go.

    It's so darned easy to pick out which airplanes are CGI and which ones are real in those productions where they mix the two. So why can't they do a better job. I'm guessing it's because it would cost more and they just don't give a sh*t.

    I would add that besides cost, that A. The folks putting this together probably have zero aeronautical background and only a Wikipedia understanding of flight and B. that 99.9 of the movie going public are completely oblivious to our "nits" for the same reason.
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    EAA Lifetime Member
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  8. #28
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Joda View Post
    Avatar worked great because it was fantasy to begin with. It was a great movie and their CGI was fantastic. But.....
    Heh. Joe's post reminded me... I'm a retired space professional (40 years in the space biz) and ALL of the space movies I've seen are models or CGI.

    So maybe I'm a bit more tolerant of CGI. :-)

    At lot it depends on whether inaccuracies in a movie "take you out of it." All entertainment depends on what's called the "Suspension of Disbelief." It may be minor (How likely is that Batman is driving by when the liquor store is being robbed) or it might require a major acceptance by the viewer, and certainly people's willingness to yield to it varies.

    A good example is the movie "Gravity," with Sandra Bullock as an astronaut on the verge of being stranded in space. The movie's problems with space physics are legendary. Little in that movie would happen the way things are depicted.

    Yet I like the movie...fully understanding how so much of it is BS. I could tolerate it because it did generate an exciting story.

    One of my co-workers was exactly opposite, livid over physics problems in space movies. I practically had to knock him on the head and drag him to see "The Martian." "Daryl, they do it REALLY well!" "NO! HOLLYWOOD ALWAYS MESSES IT UP!" He did eventually go, and really enjoyed himself.

    Yet, "The Martian" isn't perfect, either.

    So I understand folks' reaction to "Midway." And, like I mentioned, there were several aspects that made me grind my teeth. But I keep remembering those (non-combat) formation shots, with all the planes maneuvering slightly as they stayed in formation. Really impressive.

    Oddly enough, one reason for the belief that the airplanes themselves was "unrealistic" came to mind.

    Several folks have mentioned the previous version of "Midway"...which, in fact, I re-watched several weeks back.

    Practically all the in-flight scenes are WWII-era footage. The imagery is typical grainy black-and-white of that era. A few operational aircraft are shown (from the ground) with tight camera angles to hide that there are only one of two of them. The in-flight scenes of the actors are obvious "blue screen" things with the aircraft in the original WWII footage just basically silhouettes behind them.

    We're so used to seeing that old combat footage that the CGI looks wrong. Instead of graininess, there's incredible sharpness. Instead of the light and shadow of low-contrast black and white film, there's incredible subtleties in the shading. And, of course, there's glorious color.

    I think we're so conditioned to bad WWII-era footage that CGI just looks wrong.

    I grant that the moviemakers use the CGI to generate action that wouldn't be seen in real life. I wish they wouldn't do that, either.

    Then I remember that scene in "Midway" where the camera rises from the Enterprise's cutwater to deck height and pans along the deck, showing the spotted aircraft and men moving. THAT was impressive. And, short of building a huge set, it just can't be done other than using CGI.

    Of course, they had to follow it with an EXTREMELY fake scene of a simulated emergency landing, but....

    Ron Wanttaja

  9. #29
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Auburntsts View Post
    I would add that besides cost, that A. The folks putting this together probably have zero aeronautical background and only a Wikipedia understanding of flight and B. that 99.9 of the movie going public are completely oblivious to our "nits" for the same reason.

    Agreed. Actually, this is probably the most compelling reason for doing the CGI the way they do. MOST people won't know the difference anyway.

    It still drives me nuts!!
    Cheers!

    Joe

  10. #30
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    654
    Nothing will ruin a movie (or most books) for you than having more than a passing familiarity with the details of what it is that's being portrayed. I'm sure doctors cringe at medical shows, cops shake their head in disgust at cop shows, and lawyers... well, who cares? But, yeah... don't get me started about nearly any computer related scene in any TV show or movie, and a lot of flying stuff is ruined as well. I'm sure some people found that incredibly stupid airplane repo show entertaining; I couldn't bear to watch it.

    Sometimes the rest of the movie makes up for it... sometimes not.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •