whiplash From India, joined Nov 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 7931 times:
After watching Fast and the Furious 6, i realized how unrealistic a display of aviation is displayed in movies these days.. Among scenes where you just try to imagine if they were even possible or taking an improbable scene with a pinch of salt when it comes to action and carmageddon scenes. Its only when they inevitably come to the end of the movie does the bad guy try to run away in a cargo plane (which is full of imported cars) and they are being chased down by the good guys in cars.
Even if we forget all the hurdles these people pass to get an access to the runway in cars, forget how the jet blast of a plane would just blow them away while they are trying to follow, forget that a plane 20 seconds into its take off cant ever be run down by a car, forget everything logical and accept them with our brains turned off, there are times when you just can't think how the directors and writers expect us to just go along with anything they throw at us.
We have ridiculously unrealistic action sequences where an Antonov 124 is showing touching down well down the runway followed by cars, opens its back cargo door while racing down the runway well over 100 knots and cars are jumping in and out of the cargo hold.. People are fighting and falling, and this goes on for 20 minutes.. In the meanwhile the plane is still on the runway trying to take off.. After some time of humoring myself with this craziness I just had to shout out
"Come on, take off already. You have used 80kms of the 100kms runway already"
Maybe film makers will keep on making movies which defy logic of flight and destroy physics in every sense with such action stunts, so much so that you just bang your head on the wall..
Any other ridiculous flying scenes which are worse than this? Which one's your favorite?
whiplash From India, joined Nov 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 7857 times:
Exactly.. Sometimes it just feels as if they are screwing with the heads of all those who are in this field.. Kinda like, "Up yours, this is what we think would happen and reality can come and kiss my A**.. "
And you would expect them to do this in movies that don't revolve around planes.. But when i saw the movie "Flight".. I was first then and eventually this
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 4604 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7765 times:
There are a bunch of inconsistencies regarding aviation in Hollywood. I like the Nighthawk linking up with a 747 on Air Force One and the single aisle 737 in Lost (Spoiler Alert!) that manages to make it to the island in the South Pacific from LAX, yeah right. Oh yeah, then take off again with no fuel and go back! They do not get paid to get it right, just entertaining and the majority of the public does not know any better.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7543 times:
There were rumours afoot that Hollywood was going to redo the Dambusters, with a few alterations to make it more appealing to the home audience. In their eyes it was minor things, really, like replacing the RAF with the USAF and the Lancasters with Flying Fortresses. The cast might have include a sole Englishman, but only if they could work a bad guy into the script. No mention what they'd do with the dogs name, though I fear it too would be subject to 'minor' alterations.
It is foolish to even suggest Hollywood should be more correct when it comes to physics, history or technical details. They're in the entertainment business, and have no educational responsibilities.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 772 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7510 times:
Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 3): Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1):
Today I'll watch "Star Trek: Into Darkness", which should have much more credible (space) flight.
Forget about it! It's even worse.
Not to mention all the illogical inconsistencies, the most idiotic display in that film are the sounds in space, especially of the evil big and dark space ship. buhuhu
P.S. Abrams is an idiot!
Taking overly artistic licence in the making of space movies is still within the bounds of acceptability to us mere mortals as the physics of human spaceflight is currently not that well established. And more importantly, with the exception of a few hundred lucky souls who have made it from the Karman line up to the moon (none in deep space as yet), space travel is just in our imagination. Therefore, I wouldn't mind getting myself lost in space, so to speak.
Not so for airplanes as a great majority of a.netters and a good proportion of people in the more advanced economies have "been there done done that", and do possess varying amounts of knowledge of aeronautics-related matters. As such, any extended stretch of credulity in atmospheric flight related scenes is very much more jarring than that of space sojourns.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1287 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7369 times:
I can forgive Argo because the scene made for very good drama. While not very realistic, and certainly not an accurate portrayal of the very low-key escape of the actual "house guests," it made for great viewing and at the very least, it was well filmed. The whole of the film was very, very good indeed - conjuring images of older films from the era in which Argo takes place and putting the viewer in a very real feeling environment. Not as good as 2011's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - but then, few films are that good at keeping tension and unraveling a mystery in slow motion.
A movie like Fast and the Furious has virtually zero merit as a film - and all of the previous iterations have been exercises in unrealistic foolishness that might have come from the mind of Michael Bay. It's just stunts punctuated by cheesy dialogue, and honestly, renting a DVD of The Seven Ups or Ronin is a much better use of your money. You can't expect anything close to a realistic portrayal of anything from such a garbage film.
Action movies don't have to be bad movies, but nor do all films need to hue to total reality all the time.
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7854 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6937 times:
You don't need planes in that franchise to see unrealistic, cars are enough. In fact in many movies and TV series, cars always have to jump in the air as soon as you turn the wheel too fast, and any kind of accident leads to an explosion.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1030 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6858 times:
^^^LOL yup exactly. Or the one thing that always makes me chuckle is anytime there is a collision between two vehicles one of them literally goes flying upwards doing rolls. Its like WTF haha Can you imagine if thats how it really happened in real life, you see a little fender better at an intersection and the one car goes flying out of control lol.
mysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5968 times:
My first question is: why would you even pay to see the movie? Oh, right, the cars. I could be guilty of that too, but I stopped watching at FAtF2
If one watches fiction, one must sometimes suspend SOME belief. It's quite sad that a lot of movies don't use real physics and other sciences. It is the belief of a lot of SFX specialists and companies that real world science is too boring, hence we have explosions after a car rolls down a hill, that's why we have sound in space and let's not also forget Abrams came up with a whole new idea of creating black holes - red matter. I don't have a direct quote from SFX people, but if you just google Bad Astronomer, he'll explain more.
RubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Quoting whiplash (Thread starter): After watching Fast and the Furious 6, i realized how unrealistic a display of aviation is displayed in movies
Worrying about accurate portrayal in a popcorn action movie ending in '6' is a little like watching a James Bond film and complaining that some of the characters aren't truly representative of civil servants.
whiplash From India, joined Nov 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5123 times:
I am not looking for an accurate portrayal.. In fact i have written that its alright to take on all these scenes with a pinch of salt even when you know that they are improbable.. But showing a plane on the runway at take off speed for 20 minutes just does not make any sense whatsoever..
Daleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3211 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days ago) and read 4543 times:
I think it's something only we as aviation enthusiasts would recognise. Yes, the plane was on the runway for 10 minutes at takeoff speed and yes it's ridiculous but how many people who see the film would actually be bothered?
I really enjoyed the film, even with the unbelievable aircraft scene. But isn't that what Hollywood is all about?
Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
CrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1956 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4472 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
It's always noticeable in the commentary of air crash/incident survivors/witnesses. In pretty much every case where an aircraft has crashed but did not catch fire, or result in a spectacular explosion, witnesses and survivors always say that they "had expected a huge explosion". I'm pretty sure that this is because of all the aircraft exploding in movies!
Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
copter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1263 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 12): ^^^LOL yup exactly. Or the one thing that always makes me chuckle is anytime there is a collision between two vehicles one of them literally goes flying upwards doing rolls. Its like WTF haha Can you imagine if thats how it really happened in real life, you see a little fender better at an intersection and the one car goes flying out of control lol.
You missed where the car always blows up in a massive explosion--filmed from multiple positions and lasting several seconds!
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3885 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3962 times:
You guys are actually making me want to see this "Fast and Furious" movie - a plane at speed on the ground for 28 miles sounds pretty fun!
Quoting whiplash (Thread starter): Even if we forget all the hurdles these people pass to get an access to the runway in cars, forget how the jet blast of a plane would just blow them away while they are trying to follow, forget that a plane 20 seconds into its take off cant ever be run down by a car,
Well, this isn't so unbelievable that I'd find it distracting. Plenty of cars these days can blow right past 150mph, and more than a few can hit 200mph. Cars almost universally have better acceleration than airliners as well. I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know what sort of closing speed we're talking about here (or what kind of cars), but a high performance car could theoretically "run down" a plane at any point in its takeoff roll, provided it's got a long runway and some reason not to lift off. Unless you just mean the plane would be off the ground before the car caught it, rather than saying that the car just couldn't catch it.
As for jet blast, I have stood behind a 747 taking off (at St. Maarten) and if you haven't experienced it, you would be surprised at how localized it is. You can be blown away in one spot, but take two steps to the side and you feel nothing at all. It's definitely unrealistic to show a car following and gaining on a plane if it's directly behind an engine, and it would be similarly unrealistic to show cars weaving around behind a plane if they're very close, but a car positioned either directly behind the fuselage or just off to the side of an outboard engine would likely have no problem at all with jet blast.
Some things in the movies are really offensive to basic laws of physics, but there are a lot of other things that you'd probably be surprised really *are* possible. I've come home from plenty of movies thinking "can that really happen?" and when I look it up, I find out that yes, it actually can. Most screenwriters and directors get their ideas from stuff they've seen or heard about in real life. Movies by definition are supposed to be extraordinary stories (otherwise we'd have no interest in watching them), so even if something's very *rare* in real life, that wouldn't make it unbelievable in a movie. I haven't seen a lot of the F&F series but my understanding of it is that these are people supposedly modifying already-fast cars to be faster. Kinda like this Corvette that can do 0-200mph in 26 seconds (and 0-150 in about 13): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5bU5yKVygKU
The runway length sounds crazy, but I'd really have to see the rest to know if it's realistic or not.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!