• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Red Tails trailer

My question is, even though it's CG, what excuse is there for giving the aircraft such unrealistic characteristics? Production wise, it would take no more or less work to have the aircraft flying at realistic speeds, performing realistic maneuvers and not having Matrix effects projectiles as in Pearl Harbor.

Are audiences so jaded that they wouldn't go to see a movie where WWII aircraft didn't act like something from Star Wars? I really don't think so. I think Hollywood is too wrapped up in it's own version of reality 4.0.
 
CWOJackson said:
My question is, even though it's CG, what excuse is there for giving the aircraft such unrealistic characteristics? Production wise, it would take no more or less work to have the aircraft flying at realistic speeds, performing realistic maneuvers and not having Matrix effects projectiles as in Pearl Harbor.

Are audiences so jaded that they wouldn't go to see a movie where WWII aircraft didn't act like something from Star Wars? I really don't think so. I think Hollywood is too wrapped up in it's own version of reality 4.0.
Click to expand...

Hollywood, and especially the big name actors, are so far removed from reality they wouldn't know it if it bit them on the.......
 
Don't you think the Hollywood folks know that only a couple % of the population would spot the CGI errors and less than that would care. So why spend the extra money to get it right? We are a small minority and were not relevant at the box office.
 
Terry said:
Don't you think the Hollywood folks know that only a couple % of the population would spot the CGI errors and less than that would care. So why spend the extra money to get it right? We are a small minority and were not relevant at the box office.
Click to expand...

That's the point, it wouldn't cost any more or less to make it properly. Do they believe audiences are so unsophisticated that they wouldn't enjoy realism?
 
CWOJackson said:
That's the point, it wouldn't cost any more or less to make it properly. Do they believe audiences are so unsophisticated that they wouldn't enjoy realism?
Click to expand...

It would take longer for the CGI techs to get the flight physics and aircraft specs right, so it seems it would cost more.

Yes they do think we are unsophisticated as evidenced by the fact we keep paying to watch junk.
 
the thing with CGI is at the moment there isnt any "set it to go XXXMPH" you have to drag the model along a track, then click a button, then move it further one, the click another button. If you want the model to bank, then you have to rotate it at the same time, its time consuming to say the least, so when your under pressure from a big studio to get it done by a certain date i think that getting it to look exactly right goes out the window, even if the animators wanted it to be 100% accurate.

Dont get me wrong, i wish every CGI plane acted exactly like it should, but realisticly, unless you have a film that isnt under pressure to get it done as quickly as possible, its never gonna happen.
 
I guess I just see it as, we here are knowledgeable about aviation.... WE know what looks phoney and what looks real... Now, take my wife for example.... She couldn't tell the difference in flight characteristics between my 4 year old flying a model Me-109 in the house from the real deal..... I guess I'm on the fence on this whole subject... Yes I like it better when things look right.... But Im realist and am able to realize, that it is just not likely to happen....

Look at it another way.... If a Mustang flew over your house right now @ 200 ft off the deck, how many of you would know immediately what it was before you dropped your brand new baby girl on the floor and ran out the front door into the street? <===== yes I did that...... Now how many of your aquaintences can you say would have the same knowledge????

-witt
 
stiz said:
the thing with CGI is at the moment there isnt any "set it to go XXXMPH" you have to drag the model along a track, then click a button, then move it further one, the click another button. If you want the model to bank, then you have to rotate it at the same time, its time consuming to say the least, so when your under pressure from a big studio to get it done by a certain date i think that getting it to look exactly right goes out the window, even if the animators wanted it to be 100% accurate.

Dont get me wrong, i wish every CGI plane acted exactly like it should, but realisticly, unless you have a film that isnt under pressure to get it done as quickly as possible, its never gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the details Stiz. Wow, I just assumed it was a more automated process by now. CGI offers so much possibility but given the current restraints, big studios and directors "reality" I guess I was expecting too much.
 
I'm satisfied if it (movie) gets people to investigate into history a bit more through books, etc...
 
Panther_99FS said:
I'm satisfied if it (movie) gets people to investigate into history a bit more through books, etc...
Click to expand...

But that's the thing....HOW many will actually take the time to investigate further?

99.9% of the people that see this movie will take what is presented as the TRUTH and perpetuate a distorted view of history.
 
Lateral-G said:
But that's the thing....HOW many will actually take the time to investigate further?

99.9% of the people that see this movie will take what is presented as the TRUTH and perpetuate a distorted view of history.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can get an accurate estimate of this one way or the other...On the other side, there are legitimate film documentaries that exist....And this movie (bottom line) is entertainment...
 
CWOJackson said:
Thanks for the details Stiz. Wow, I just assumed it was a more automated process by now. CGI offers so much possibility but given the current restraints, big studios and directors "reality" I guess I was expecting too much.
Click to expand...

I saw George Lucas on television before Revenge of the Sith came out. I disctinctly remember him saying "You'd be surprised what computers can't do."

ATTN: Wittpilot,

I was driving along the road next to Niagara Falls International Airport one year and saw a newly restored Mustang parked outside one of the hangars. I nearly drove the car into a ditch.

JAMES
 
I see here a debate developing between CGI and Historical accuracy; why?

Profits? Cameron's Titanic was, despite a romantic story plot, staying pretty close to historical facts and was not a bust at the box office if memory serves me...

Entertainment? A fleet of CG B-24 is as entertaining as a fleet of CG B-17, or am I missing something here?

Technology? I think that Lucas should have a conversation with Cameron. He would be surprised to know what computers can do.

Directors used to have historical consultants long before CGI came in. and I don't think that one is exclusive of the other.
 
Got an old neighbor who was a Tuskegee Airman & I know one local here who was a Tuskegee Airman, I'll try and find out from one of them what their take is on this movie.....:mixedsmi:
 
heres a twist i just though of ... top gun, look how many people that prolly got into the navy, are you telling me that was 100% acurate? :mixedsmi:
 
Re: Same

Terry said:
It would take longer for the CGI techs to get the flight physics and aircraft specs right, so it seems it would cost more.

Yes they do think we are unsophisticated as evidenced by the fact we keep paying to watch junk.
Click to expand...


As long as people pay to watch junk, they''ll keep making it. Maybe if we all stop
Watching them Hollyweird will wakeup and make better movies. George Lucas is working on the screenplay for Starwars 7,8 and 9. This movie is going on the George
Lucas's name.
 
I too think the CGI in this movie looks bad from real world flight characteristics but in defense of the producers, so were some of the box office movies during WWII such as The Flying Tigers with John Wayne. Terrible models flying into each other,crashing to the ground etc. We still watch em.
:kilroy:
 
I admit, I'm very prejudiced in favor of actual airplanes rather than CGI, but as has already been stated, we don't have the planes anymore. If we're going to be really strict and even-handed about it, even the 109s in Battle of Britain were flying with the wrong engines. I'm willing to wait until Red Tails comes out before I pass judgement. Then I may have more to say.

JAMES
 
Eoraptor1 said:
I admit, I'm very prejudiced in favor of actual airplanes rather than CGI, but as has already been stated, we don't have the planes anymore. If we're going to be really strict and even-handed about it, even the 109s in Battle of Britain were flying with the wrong engines. I'm willing to wait until Red Tails comes out before I pass judgement. Then I may have more to say.

JAMES
Click to expand...

And the Stuka's were models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top