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

[rwanttaja]

Here's one of the posters for the new "Midway" movie coming out this fall. It's apparent the art department at the studio doesn't have any airplane buffs in it. I see one major and at least three minor technical errors in it. Anyone else?
http://www.wanttaja.com/midway2.jpg
Ron Wanttaja

[Kyle Boatright]

4 blade prop on an SBD?

[rwanttaja]

4 blade prop on an SBD?

Yep, that's the major one. It's also showing gun flashes come out of the wing roots of the SBD (Dauntless' forward-firing guns were on top of the cowl) and what looks to be a P-51 going down in flames in the background (Floats should be happy).

The Zero at the top of the image has a two-bladed prop, but assuming the artist were depicting the Zeke conversions of the T-6, that's accurate.

I don't think the SBDs carried wing bombs at Midway; too far to fly.

I had originally thought the markings were wrong (was expecting the red dot in the middle of the star) but the dot had been eliminated about a month prior to the battle. Probably were planes at Midway that still had it, but the poster would be correct.

The bow on the carrier in the background doesn't match any of the Japanese carriers at Midway...they all had a flight deck mounted high above a lower hull. This could be intended to represent the Yorktown, although the clipper bow is far too aggressive. The bow looks a bit like the Shinano, although I believe it was still a battleship (under construction) at this point.

Ron Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

The swinging bomb rack is missing too. The chin scoop in front of the bomb is missing, but you could argue that it is obscured by the prop blade.

[Mike Switzer]

I hate it when they remake a movie that was good the first time around. This one will probably be all CGI. I won't be paying to see it.

[Kyle Boatright]

There is a second "mustang" in the background. No wonder we won the battle - using 1944/45 weapons in 1942 is an unfair advantage.

[cdlwingnut]

well for one that dive bomber looks like it is coming out of the bottom of its dive and hasn't dropped its bombs, and since it didn't deploy its dive brakes it'd probably be in the water by now as well.

[Airmutt]

Yup, I noticed that the flaps and speed brakes weren’t deployed but the dive angle is too flat.
Didn’t think the original movies was all that great. Eons ago I spent a week on Wake Island. You could still make out remnants of the US defensive earthworks and the PanAm pier in the lagoon. On another deployment was diverted to Midway when our KC-130 got struck by lightning and then took a gooney bird strike on the RH refueling pod on short final. It was no longer a full up base, just support personnel. Didn’t get much of chance to meander around. On another deployment we ended up on Johnson atoll chasing an F-4 that had lost hydraulics on one engine trans-PAC’ing back from Iwakuni while it was still an active chem storage facility....very glad to get out of there.

[FlyingRon]

You certainly would have a hard time putting together a cast like the original (1976). Not only were there giant names on the US Navy roles (and just about everybody there was a star or would be, even had young Erik Estrada and Tom Selleck), but just about every Asian-American actor of note was pulled in including Pat (Karate Kid) Morita and Robert (Sam from Quincy ME) Morita, Not heard of too many in the remake other than Woody Harrelson (who I think will suck as Nimitz, certainly no Henry Fonda), and Dennis Quaid.

[BusyLittleShop]

Mercy would it kill them to get it right??? more like this but with the bomb released...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/51/94/6b5194d0b52a37a777a5de13ca3b4bbd.jpg

[rwanttaja]

I always like the poster for the 1976 version of "Midway"....
http://www.wanttaja.com/midway_1976.jpg

One thing that gets me about this...is the "island" on the carrier on the wrong side? Larry's image shows it on the port side as well. I thought they were always on the starboard side. Did the Japanese spin the propellers the opposite way on their carriers?

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I hate it when they remake a movie that was good the first time around. This one will probably be all CGI. I won't be paying to see it.

I'm not that negative about CGI, as long as it's well done with people who are knowledgeable about aircraft and how they fly. I thought the "Dogfights" TV series did pretty well.

The fact is, there aren't that many of these aircraft left any more. They're good for showing closeups of the actor and details of the aircraft themselves, but showing an entire squadron of, say, SBDs is going to take a lot of optical effects that often aren't all that convincing.

And, of course, there ARE no flyable TBDs, and it's hard to tell the story about Midway without showing Torpedo Eight. I'd rather see a whole CGI squadron of Devastors than one or two gray-painted T-6s pretending to be them.

"Flyboys" still makes me cringe when I see some of the sequences. While I know a lot of folks complained, I thought "Red Tails" did pretty well.

They're getting pretty good at this sort of thing, but it's vital to have aviation-knowledgeable people involved. The "Midway" poster that started this thread was a good example...one would expect the artist probably had an SBD model to look at. But the artist decided to depict it with a four-bladed prop, which means they were looking more for spectacle than accuracy. One would hope the CGI folks are a bit better grounded.

Ron Wanttaja

[cdlwingnut]

I always like the poster for the 1976 version of "Midway"....


One thing that gets me about this...is the "island" on the carrier on the wrong side? Larry's image shows it on the port side as well. I thought they were always on the starboard side. Did the Japanese spin the propellers the opposite way on their carriers?

Ron Wanttaja

that akagi and soryu had their islands on the left side, the theory being that the kaga and akagi were a division and would sail together one would use a right traffic pattern the other the left the soryu and hiryu the same. the idea was dropped with the shokaku and zukaku

[gmatejcek]

All of the above, plus the cowl lip is sharp and not contoured, the rudder is hard over, and the greenhouse is not open correctly.
For what it's worth, at least some of the planes did carry 100 pound incendiaries under the wings in addition to the centerline munition.
I've had the pleasure of being remotely connected to one of the unsung heroes of the engagement, and for those who might be interested in a fascinating and humble first person account of his life, times, and exploits, read "Never Call Me A Hero". I am not impartial as the fella was the father of a friend, but it is a very cool story indeed.

[quietflyer]

Re above-- I think there may be something in the background behind the top of the tail that you are mistaking for the balance horn of a hard-over rudder. Actually, the Dauntless rudder didn't have a balance horn. (I didn't actually know that till I googled it, I just noticed that the picture didn't look like a hard-over rudder to me.) https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwivpf2Y2vjiAhVEAqwKHRR6CEIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fww2aircraft.net%2Fforum%2Fthread s%2Fsbd-dauntless-from-scratch.43284%2F&psig=AOvVaw3KBmwGXtGvQBZ9bggQbcvi&ust=1561142242872012

[rwanttaja]

Well, the first trailer is out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd8OsSdXEGc

Some thoughts:

1. The implementation of the CGI looks pretty realistic
2. But movie has standard "over-dramatization" of action sequences, showing the planes far lower and far closer than they actually would be.
3. In the brief glimpses one sees of them, the planes look pretty accurate. The scene showing the Dauntless diving on the carrier (1:34) looked pretty accurate (given the issue raised in #2).
4. Movie apparently covers the period between the Pearl Harbor attack and Midway, including the Doolittle raid. Not fired up about that (the movie Pearl Harbor also suffered from expanding the topic too much). Though the shot of the B-25 taking off through the spray is impressive (0:59).
5. Woody Harrelson as Nimitz looks surprisingly good. Aaron Eckhart looks sufficiently craggy as Doolittle. Spencer Tracy still did it better.
6. One brief sequence of Eckhart as Doolittle saluting correctly (1:22)...refreshing, considering some abominable salutes you see in the movies. However, still sloppy salutes from the extras in the background.
7. No scenes showing actors with the aircraft on the ground, so we don't know if they've got accurate mockups or are using stand-ins. One SBD tail in a scene looks a little insubstantial.
8. The battleship at 0:49 looks like a US Iowa-class battleship, which weren't commissioned until later in the war.

OK, I'm looking forward to this one, now... :-)

Ron "Problems with fresh water supply" Wanttaja

[BusyLittleShop]

Warbirds zipping around at Star Wars pace... wow oh wow thats the best CGI I've seen since last week...

[rwanttaja]

Saw the new "Midway" today.

Surprisingly, I liked it a lot. Yes, they used CGI to overly-dramaticize the combat sequences. However, for the most part, the CGI is *very* realistic. The in-flight work was set up very similarly to the way air-to-air between real planes would look. There's a sequence where one of the main characters in an SBD is being chased by Zeros, and it's a real nail-biter.

And it's a kick seeing a squadron of realistic Dauntlesses and Devastators maneuver around, vs. a batch of models or cut-up old trainers. I'll say, too, that the SHIP sequences...the carriers and others... were top-notch as well. Near the start of the movie, there's a camera shot that rises near the bow of a US carrier and tracks aft, showing the planes spotted on deck and men working. Great CGI work (probably a combination of CGI and live action).

Sure, I saw stuff that was wrong. But I have to say the errors never "took me out" of the movie. It just tallied in my head (ping!) and I went back to watching the action. Wasn't a perfect movie (I thought the loss of the Yorktown was treated rather perfunctorily, and where were the Wildcats?), but there certainly have been worse ones.

Couple things I'll praise about it. Woody Harrelson as Nimitz. No trace of the usual nutball that Harrelson portrays. Dennis Quaid as Halsey does a great job, as does Aaron Eckhart as Dolittle.

One of the things the movie does VERY right is casting (mostly) young actors as pilots and flight crew. They looked the right age. Also, I was impressed with the costuming. The khakis worn by the American officers LOOKED like the clothing they wore every day. Not smooth permanent press, but kind of rough, kind of wrinkled. Sure, it's a stupid point, but for me, it did make them look like serving officers, not perma-press-clad actors.

Finally, a special shout-out to the depiction of the Japanese side of the story. Very interesting to get their viewpoint.

Worth seeing, folks.

Ron Wanttaja

[Auburntsts]

I saw it this past Monday -- didn't like it that much. I thought the CGI was way too video game-ish and the plot line too contrived in order to create "drama" instead of simply telling a great story. I liked the 1976 original way better which I thought actually did a way better job of portraying the events leading up to and the actual battle itself. My recommendation, save your money and rent the original. YMMV....

[FlyingRon]

Can't appreciate the original unless you have the "Sensurround" speakers installed in the theater.

[Joda]

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.

[Kyle Boatright]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[Auburntsts]

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.

[Airmutt]

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.

[Joda]

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.....


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.

[Auburntsts]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[Joda]

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!!

[DaleB]

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.

[FlyingRon]

As sort of tangentially pointed out, even in 1970 you didn't have a lot of the real thing either. There was a lot of fakes and optical effects and reuse of stock footage then.

[DaleB]

SO MANY T-6 Texans painted with meatballs...

[Mayhemxpc]

How 'bout this one:

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

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

That was CGI? Awesome!