Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Argo Gets Its Planes Wrong  
User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9639 times:

Below is a copy of my most recent "Ask the Pilot" blog post. I'm pasting it here to make sure I've got the details correct, and to see if I've missed any.



SO I WATCHED "ARGO", the Academy Award-winning Ben Affleck movie about the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran.

Those of us of a certain age remember the hostage crisis quite well. Until September 11th, nothing in post-World War Two American history garnered more media attention and public discussion, save perhaps for the Vietnam War.

I thought the movie started strong but ended weakly. The closing sequence, especially, was contrived and overwrought -- not to mention historically inaccurate.

But it's the airplane scenes that we're here to talk about:

The Boeing 747 is one of the movie's stars. The iconic jet makes numerous appearances in the period colors of British Airways, Iran Air, and -- at the end, during that ridiculous escape scene -- Swissair.

The 747 is the Empire State Building of jetliners. It's no longer the biggest or the flashiest, but it's still the grandest and most historically significant. And any movie set in the 70s, particularly one focused on what was such a huge international story, come on, if there's gonna be an airplane, it HAS TO BE a 747!

I'm reminded of the line from that old Nick Lowe song...

"Seven forty seven put him in that condition,
Flyin' back from a peace keeping mission..."

Anyway, I don't know if the British Airways jet that brought CIA agent Tony Mendez into Tehran really was a 747. I don't know if the Swissair plane that carried the six Americans to freedom really was a 747. But either way, I'm glad the filmmakers chose one. That's not the sort of artistic license that irks me.

What irks me is that these airplane scenes were, quite clearly, digitalized fakes. Even a child could see this. The shot of the BA flight descending into Mehrabad airport looked like something an eighth grader had put together on his iPad. It was so goofily phony that it was hard not to laugh out loud.

The Swissair scenes, in the film's closing minutes, were no better. What a waste. There's the 747, front and center of one of the coolest moments of the past 40 years. Except that it's rendered in a sort of CGI-lite. There's one shot, of the plane's left wing, where they didn't even pretend to make it real. The intake of the number one engine is just a two-dimensional black circle. As the kids say, WTF?

Oh, and by the way, the entire airplane is wrong. What you see in "Argo" is a -300 series 747, with the extended upper deck and traditional (no winglets) wing. Swissair did operate the 747-300 for a time. The trouble is, it didn't take delivery of the first one until 1983, four years after the events portrayed in the film.

As the movie comes to a close, we see the superimposed jet accelerating down the runway, chased along by a phalanx of Iranian military vehicles and police cars. These cars and trucks miraculously keep pace until the nose gear begins to lift. I'm unaware of any jeeps or police sedans able to drive 170 miles-per-hour, but who knows what secret weapons the Iranians had in 1979.

Yawn.

You mean to tell me that with the millions of dollars lavished on the production of a major film, that Affleck and company couldn't have gotten hold of an actual 747 (the correct -200 variant) for a couple of simple runway scenes? Are you kidding? Several 747-200s are still flying, and I'm sure the owners (cargo companies mostly) would have been happy to lease one out for a few days. Dozens more are mothballed in the deserts of California and Arizona, within driving distance of Hollywood, any one of which could have been painted up in the appropriate colors.

Speaking of which...

Earlier on, I was impressed that they got the period livery for British Airways exactly right, including the typeface used in airport signage. There's also a very quick shot of the tail section of an Iran Air 747. Here too, though don't see it for more than a second, the livery is correct.

But then, with Swissair, they blow it. The colors shown, with the black and brown striping and the full red tail, weren't used until 1980. They've got the wrong plane AND the wrong paint job.

Here is a Swissair 747 of the correct make, in the correct livery
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Swissair/Boeing-747-257B/1494204/L/

Here is what they used.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Swissair/Boeing-747-357M/1883197/L

Not to nitpick, but there's also an earlier scene that shows a Boeing 737 taking off in silhouette. It's a model that didn't exist at the time. This, maybe, is forgivable. The rest is not.

I don't understand why flubs like these are so annoyingly common in movies. When it comes to cars, consumer products, hairstyles and clothes, Hollywood goes through considerable pain and expense to get their period details right, even the smallest details that the average viewer wouldn't necessarily notice or care about. But with airplanes and airlines, these standards don't apply, even when the airplane is center stage.



Patrick Smith


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6015 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9601 times:

Seeing as the airport scenes were filmed at ONT, and that they couldn't readily get a 747-100, let alone a Swissair 747-100, I give them a pass. I give them bonus points for shooting in the old terminal and at the old Lockheed area at ONT.


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12499 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):

Maybe you're taking it WAY too seriously?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9535 times:

For what it's worth, it would have been a -200, not a -100, I believe. Is this correct?


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9508 times:

The main plot of Argo was about helping 6 people escape from Iran. It was not about airplanes. Therefore, the studio is not going to waste an enormous amount of time researching airplane specs for this film.

User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9427 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):
The main plot of Argo was about helping 6 people escape from Iran. It was not about airplanes. Therefore, the studio is not going to waste an enormous amount of time researching airplane specs for this film.

Huh? By that standard, why would any filmmaker bother to get any period details correct? But they do, of course, and they should. The art of movies would be trash without such efforts.

Why are planes so often exempt, is what I'm asking?



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlinezotan From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9382 times:

I think planes are so often exempt because most people really don't care if they are using a -200, -300, or even an A380. The -300 was close enough.

User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9311 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):
The main plot of Argo was about helping 6 people escape from Iran. It was not about airplanes. Therefore, the studio is not going to waste an enormous amount of time researching airplane specs for this film.

Not entirely correct. Some directors take a lot of effort to ensure their props are correct. The aircraft or vehicles used are part of that. If you look at the list of gopfs for Argo you wonder how this can be an Oscar winning film...

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
Below is a copy of my most recent "Ask the Pilot" blog post. I'm pasting it here to make sure I've got the details correct, and to see if I've missed any.

If you look on IMDB you'll see they made more avaiation related mistakes in that movie. All but the type are already listed on IMDB as goofs. However, I think you should mentioned the thing with the 747-300 as well as it adds to the already long list of goofs for this movie.

BTW it seems they really screwed up with the Swissair 747. Wrong type, wrong livery and a registration which belonged to a DC-9.....


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 886 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9285 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Reply 5):

Because .0001% of the viewing public dont care about what plane they are looking at. They paid to see "Argo" not a 747-100.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9184 times:

Next you're going to tell me that the events of "Flight" weren't 100% correct.  


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9161 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 8):
Because .0001% of the viewing public dont care about what plane they are looking at. They paid to see "Argo" not a 747-100.

Okay, that is totally missing the point. Again, by that standard, why would filmmakers bother to get other period details correct, even seemingly insignificant ones? But they do, and they should. That's part of the art of movie-making.



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9033 times:

The dancing scenes in Amadeus were completely out of period, with moves that were not even invented yet. It won an Oscar too.

Anyway, the movie wasn't about getting 6 people out. It was about Hollywoods involvement in getting them out. From what I understand the least fictionalized part was the Hollywood part. The Canadians did far more than they got credit for. And the end of the movie simply never happened (other than the phone call confirming Argo existed). But that's Hollywood.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 9017 times:

Anyway the 1980 livery is way better.  


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Double post. Please delete.

[Edited 2013-03-01 12:27:05]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
I don't understand why flubs like these are so annoyingly common in movies. When it comes to cars, consumer products, hairstyles and clothes, Hollywood goes through considerable pain and expense to get their period details right, even the smallest details that the average viewer wouldn't necessarily notice or care about. But with airplanes and airlines, these standards don't apply, even when the airplane is center stage.

A greater percentage of the population will recognize and relate to period products, cars, hairstyles, clothes etc. than airplanes. People will remember days when they wore certain clothes, drove certain cars, did their hair a certain way and used certain products more than they'll remember that they took a 747-200 instead of a 747-300. Most people don't even know multiple 747 variants exist! Heck, to the majority all large airliners are "jumbo jets!"

Hollywood spends more time and effort on period accuracies to which the audience will relate. Airline enthusiast are the minority.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6015 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8773 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 13):
Most people don't even know multiple 747 variants exist! Heck, to the majority all large airliners are "jumbo jets!"

In a real-life example, there was a guy on Airline! (US) that was wondering why they were going on a "tiny" 737 instead of a jumbo jet---between LAX and PHX.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

I'm with the OP, what would you think if Titantic were filmed on a Carnival ship, after all the story is boy meets girl, the boat is just a backdrop.


Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8751 times:

I'm with Aviateur. When you spend that kind of money on a movie, it's a small thing to have someone look up details of such a highly visible item. Though I did like the Star Wars toys in the kid's bedroom! :+)

BTW: in the Sherlock episode where they introduce Irene Adler, Sherlock figures out a set of numbers to be a BA flight from LHR to BWI....on a 747. D'OH! Great show, but that error stood out to me.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6015 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8732 times:

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 16):
what would you think if Titantic were filmed on a Carnival ship, after all the story is boy meets girl, the boat is just a backdrop.

A majority of it was filmed on the Queen Mary, which was built 20 years after the Titanic.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinebrooklynchris13 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8733 times:

(Sigh). I commend the crew of Argo for getting it as close as they possibly could within reason. My other career (besides being a plane buff) is in the Fire Service. Since 1995, I have watched movie after movie, show after show, get nearly everything about the fire service wrong, or at least pretty wrong. I have learned to just enjoy it when they get a small detail right, or, even more importantly, when they get the "feeling" right. There is a reason they aren't called documentaries-- but, rather, pieces of entertainment. I, for one, was amazingly entertained by Argo, and Flight, and, even Top Gun and its F5 MiGs. Its all part of the show. Sometimes, knowing too much, can be a bad thing. Now, does that mean we shouldnt try to learn, of course not. And does that mean we shouldnt giggle to our aviation friends about an upside down mad-dog with winglets? nah, its all part of the fun too. As the first respondent said... Its not that serious.


be the change you want to see in the world (mg)
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8341 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SwissAIR did fly some 747-200 on their flights to JFK before the 743's. ZRH to JFK and ZRH-GVA-JFK were flown daily with 747-200 before the 743's.

User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8685 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 13):
Hollywood spends more time and effort on period accuracies to which the audience will relate. Airline enthusiast are a huge minority.

Unfortunately this doesn't apply to Argo. Haven't seen so apparant goofs in a movie (and by this I don't mean the aviation related ones only). The aviation related ones probably the least annoying (though teh movie lost its remaining credibility in the scene where the Iranians chased the 747). If you take the trouble in getting the livery of the BA aircraft correct, how much extra work is it to get your final scene accurate or credible.

BTW I wonder how the Iranian remake will look like (if it ever comes).


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8341 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SwissAIR did fly some 747-200 on their flights to JFK before the 743's. ZRH to JFK and ZRH-GVA-JFK were flown daily with 747-200 before the 743's.

User currently offlineB2468 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8542 times:

I agree that most moviegoers aren't going to give a hoot or a holler about aircraft details...most people don't care if the aircraft was a -300 if it should have been a -200, or whether the reg belonged on a DC9...I think most of the people in the world who care about and notice that stuff are right here on A.net.

However, Argo won an Oscar, and a film that wins an award at that level should show excellence in all aspects of production, including historical accuracy in aviation. If the director/production crew don't/can't put forth the effort to be as accurate as possible, they shouldn't win Oscars.

Of course, there are limits, and I understand that...okay maybe there was only a -300 available to the production crew...circumstances beyond their control may have prevented them from using a -200, and that's understandable, but the Swissair livery should have been correct.

I think most of the fault may lay with the Oscar committee; high level awards shouldn't go to films where there were obvious shortcuts. Truly talented film artists can tell a compelling story while adhering to accuracy.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 2):
Maybe you're taking it WAY too seriously?

If Argo were a "B" movie, I'd say you are right, but it won an Oscar...eh, maybe some of us do take it too seriously.

::End of armchair film snob rant::



Dash-8/ERJ/306/310/319/320/332/333/343/346/388/72S/731/732/733/734/73G/738/741/744/74E/752/762/763/77E/77W/DC9/D1C/M82
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3502 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Reply 5):
Huh? By that standard, why would any filmmaker bother to get any period details correct? But they do, of course, and they should. The art of movies would be trash without such efforts.

Well, the film industry has seldom worried about airplane accuracy. For years, the standard gear retraction footage was of a B-52, no matter what airplane was shown at the gate.

One of the worst violations I can remember was in an episode of the $6 Million Man. He took off in an F-104, did aerobatics in an F-4 and landed in an F-5 ( not be exactly the right airplanes but you catch my drift).



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
25 CF105Arrow : I understand your point but then again the main historical facts in the movie are innacurate. They just did a movie that would appeal to the american
26 B2468 : Well, you have a point, as well, and there are a lot of historical details that I won't comment on, since I am not very knowledgeable about them. How
27 CF105Arrow : I guess the patriotic nature of the plot rather than the quality of the film made it oscar material for the Academy!
28 Braybuddy : I think you can get too hung-up on detail here. The production team went a long way to get the details right, but there is a limit to how far you're g
29 hivue : Reality in the movies can be a relative thing. I recall back in the '60s being blown away by Ken Adam's B-52 set in "Dr Strangelove." Ultra-realistic
30 Airxliban : Swissair did not fly the 747 to THR, not in 1983 not in 1980. A DC-8 operated SR 363 on the day of the escape.
31 AVIATEUR : This is false. They had a choice of using the correct airplane (make and livery), or the incorrect airplane. Either one was going to take the same am
32 Post contains links and images dalmd88 : The actual aircraft that they flew out on was this one.View Large View MediumPhoto © Eduard Marmet Getting a flyable DC-8-62 is a pretty tall order t
33 AVIATEUR : That's a good point actually. I have to plead guilty, I guess. I'm cheating a bit. It's really not fair that I can give them a pass for using a 747 i
34 Viscount724 : Why should they make more of an effort to be accurate on something that not 1 in 1000 people who watch the movie will ever be aware of when much of t
35 Silver1SWA : A 747 was around at the time. Perhaps they researched only enough to come to that conclusion. How are they supposed to know to go further and pick th
36 L410Turbolet : Not necessarily. Makers of The Baader Meinhof Complex, a movie about the infamous leftist terrorist group made an exceptional effort (by Hollywood st
37 steve6666 : If I remember correctly, Jarhead featured a TWA 747-400 or -300 which I thought was an interesting innovation...
38 vfw614 : I don't think that there is even an Oscar category for what you are expecting here. There is an Oscar for best costume, best make-up and best visual
39 ikramerica : Argo won best picture because it was a movie about Hollywood helping do something good, and they are all a bunch of narcissists here, so it gets extr
40 Post contains images flyingturtle : From the picture's description: HB-IDL (cn 46134/513) "Aargau" "Aargau" would be pronounced something like "Argo" by an American. Back on topic: They
41 exFWAOONW : If they can make the effort to get something as small an inconsequential as a cense plates right, they should at least make half an effort on somethi
42 Post contains images L410Turbolet : a) My point was the degree of attention to detail.... b) If Mayday producers can be bothered to include accurate, computer generated/remastered image
43 ytz : As a Canadian, I am more offended by the fact that: 1) The movie totally downplays the role that Canada, Ken Taylor and all the other Candian embassy
44 Post contains images vfw614 : And the bottom line is... ...you can still win an Oscar and make 200m+ USD at the box office despite getting the aircraft wrong and upsetting the a.nu
45 AVIATEUR : Several movies feature key scenes that were filmed at airports. But the heck with 'Argo,' give me 1975's 'Dog Day Afternoon' any day. Now that's a mov
46 DeltaMD90 : As much as it upsets some of us, I think the fact that they got a Swissair 747 of some variant is something to celebrate. We notice all the flaws, but
47 ikramerica : It would have cost no more to fake a DC-8 rather than a 747. It's just Affleck, Clooney and the other "sexy producer" didn't really care. Nor did the
48 AeroWesty : Sure there is, it's called "Best Production Design". The movie Lincoln won this year.
49 vfw614 : Thanks for clarifying this. So in order to rest this case, "Argo" did not get a nominaiton is that category, be it for the wrong planes or not:
50 Post contains images birdbrainz : From what I understand, this movie has all kinds of historical inaccuracies. So bad, in fact, that using the wrong aircraft is the least of the conce
51 Post contains links mpsrent : The movie is Hollywood's version of history in a number of areas, most importantly, the true story. To get the real story, check with Ken Taylor, the
52 RussianJet : Totally spoiled an otherwise great film. There was no need for that ridiculous runway scene followed by the all-American whoop fest.
53 ChazPilot : If you really want to get into details, you could also point out the absurdity of those cars approaching the accelerating jumbo from directly behind
54 ASA : Almost ALL movies get the planes wrong ... almost ALL. I don't remember a single movie where they accurately depicted the airplanes, engines, wheels,
55 DTWSXM : You are absolutely right. Such details as correct fabric for clothing and proper dialect are given great attention. You question is quite valid, why
56 Post contains images AeroWesty : I'm absolutely sure that the filmmakers had the historical information available, but they went with another option near the truth to fit the look, f
57 timpdx : heh. my coworker worked on the film. It was done on the cheap, and he is somewhat embarassed by the awful effects used in the show. Tehran was done in
58 NASBWI : Unless, of course, the airplane is the centerpiece for the movie. Passenger 57 (cheesy as it was, stayed true to the L10-11); Air Force One; Executiv
59 Silver1SWA : As I explained in reply 14, those other details strike much closer to home for 99.99% of the population than whether or not a 747-200 or 747-300 is h
60 Polaris : This is a movie and not a documentary. For the movie, they changed history in order to make it more marketable. The movie itself is not historically c
61 cosyr : That's not even a little bit true. It was filmed on one of the biggest sets ever built, a nearly 60% complete replica of titanic built on a pier in M
62 Schweigend : I'm absolutely with you on this, Patrick. If we consider the films of Alfred Hitchcock, it's quite clear that he went to great lengths to be as reali
63 Post contains images flyingturtle : Some guys from a.nut should start an aviation consulting business in L.A. David
64 Post contains images L0VE2FLY : 99% of the general population including the folks at Hollywood don't know the difference between a 707 and 777, let alone a 742 and 743. If only all m
65 varigb707 : Great report. I am too, an airline enthusiast (not an expert, though) and whenever I see a mistake on a movie, it bothers me a bid. I have seen scene
66 Post contains images varigb707 : At least it got moved. I had quite a few that were simply delted for "not belonging" or something. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
67 ALTF4 : OP, you're dripping in sarcasm, right? By your standard, there are hundreds of other things wrong in the movie, and how dare you focus only on aviatio
68 RussianJet : The thing is, the bits with planes in, particularly the stupid runway chase, were by far the WORST parts of the film. The rest was pretty much ok, so
69 AR385 : I´ve seen at least two episodes where they get the aircraft wrong. 1) The AeroMexico crash in Cerritos. They show an MD-80, when the real thing was
70 bwest : Let alone if it was the correct plane or not, the whole runway chase kinda ruined the movie for me. So unrealistic. The movie got such a good build up
71 Post contains images MadameConcorde : They should have looked at hiring A.netters as consultants for the film regarding aviation and airplanes. Such mistakes would not have existed it wou
72 Post contains images RussianJet : It was all going fairly well until the end. I don't recall the first misdeed to have overly distracted me, but the foolish ending showed an appalling
73 GDB : A good point, well spotted. And the makers of the film knew full well they deliberately lying about those who put their own safety at risk, to help t
74 Aeri28 : I'ts not a documentary, people. It's a Hollywood film based on true events. I could not read all above, but I get the obvious jist of what is said. I
75 RussianJet : I was totally unfamiliar with the real life story, but the end bits still stuck out to me as unbelievably crap.
76 flyingturtle : I digress a bit... Movies have always been some kind of a propaganda tool. You rather believe a film than a leaflet. That's why there was a lot of ru
77 arrow : My suggestion is that an enterprising British/Canadian co-production should do a movie -- get Daniel Craig to be the star -- about the capture of Iwo
78 Aeri28 : Personally I thought it was thrilling. Edge of your seat. I'm not alone in this too. lol. Don't know if it was you or someone else above that mention
79 Braybuddy : That ending was complete fiction, and the way he escaped was much more interesting and dramatic. He stole a boat under the cover of darkness, and fra
80 GDB : Quite right, people should not but many probably do. As for the UK film industry, they don't really do war movies, or haven't hardly since the 1960's
81 flyingturtle : I still have to see JFK. And yes, films can be very convincing, and this is both the up and the down side of movies. Have you ever seen "Dark Side of
82 Post contains images ALTF4 : You're missing the point. The movie was a commercial success. What is the view from the powers at be? Probably looks something like: Stories sell. Pr
83 arrow : I'm not missing the point -- I'm making a different point. I understand that commercial success is what motivates the movie producer, and I understan
84 GDB : No one begrudges them making a profit. But why insert a deliberate fiction for no good reason? To jazz the story up and/or speed the narrative along -
85 itsjustme : Either you don't watch a lot of movies/TV or you have way too much time on your hands. I don't recall the nic of the poster who said he is in the fir
86 Post contains images oldeuropean : 99.99 percent of world's population don't care about aicraft types.
87 arrow : Well, I watched the movie last night, and enjoyed it. Although it must have been a really bad year for movies for this one to get the Oscar. It wasn't
88 GDB : Long mooted, but so far not filmed, is a re-make of 'The Dambusters'. Peter Jackson has mentioned it, as a New Zealander and given the numbers of Comm
89 Post contains images czbbflier : No, it is not a Hollywood film based on true events. It is a Hollywood fiction appropriating and then misrepresenting true events. The facts of the s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mumbai Gets Its Sealink. posted Sun Jul 5 2009 02:15:05 by HAWK21M
NSA Gets Fourth Amendment Wrong posted Fri Jan 27 2006 00:51:06 by Tbar220
Houston Astrodome Gets Its Own Zipcode posted Fri Sep 2 2005 20:33:07 by Lt-AWACS
Chrysler Finally Gets Its Act Together posted Mon Oct 28 2002 22:02:47 by Superfly
BT Gets It Wrong posted Tue Sep 5 2006 13:32:52 by Legoguy
When Science Fiction Gets It Wrong... posted Thu Jan 19 2006 13:17:22 by Andz
Jihad And Its Wrong Interpretation. posted Mon Nov 18 2002 02:59:07 by Bravo45
A Car That Gets 117 MPG (2 L/100km) posted Tue Jan 29 2013 14:46:02 by L0VE2FLY
BSA Ending Its Ban On Gays. posted Mon Jan 28 2013 15:08:54 by fr8mech
Briton Gets Death Sentence For Drug Smuggling posted Tue Jan 22 2013 07:08:07 by RussianJet