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, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9564 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, 5961 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9526 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, 12283 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9484 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, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9460 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, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9433 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, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9352 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 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9307 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, 4400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9236 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, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9210 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, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9109 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, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9086 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, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8958 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, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8942 times:

Anyway the 1980 livery is way better.  


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8755 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 offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8739 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, 5961 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8698 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, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8699 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, 4487 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8676 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


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8657 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 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8658 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, 8250 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8638 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, 4400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8610 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, 8250 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8561 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 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8467 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, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8436 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
User currently offlineCF105Arrow From Canada, joined Oct 2007, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8649 times:

Quoting B2468 (Reply 23):
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.

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 public so they can sell more tickets and cash in on it.


User currently offlineB2468 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8549 times:

Quoting CF105Arrow (Reply 25):
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 public so they can sell more tickets and cash in on it.

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. However, there were just some things that did not strike me as "Oscar Quality". The incorrect Swissair livery just seemed like a sloppy error, and the CGI also just did not seem top-notch, which I would expect in an Oscar-winning film. The CGI kind of reminded me of the CGI L1011 from "The Langoliers". The CGI in "Langoliers" wasn't great, but then again, I don't recall it winning major awards.

Overall, I didn't think "Argo" was bad...in fact I found it interesting...I suppose my biggest beef is that I don't think it is Oscar-quality.

But, the Academy didn't ask me (or any of us, for that matter) what I thought.



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 offlineCF105Arrow From Canada, joined Oct 2007, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8586 times:

Quoting B2468 (Reply 26):
But, the Academy didn't ask me (or any of us, for that matter) what I thought.

I guess the patriotic nature of the plot rather than the quality of the film made it oscar material for the Academy!


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5619 posts, RR: 32
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8451 times:

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 going to go with historical accuracies, and budget would be the overriding factor. I've no doubt that had they used the correct aircraft someone, somewhere would point out any minor errors in the livery, or somesuch other detail. There's only so far you can go with these things, unless you have a lot of time and an unlimited budget.

I find it hard to fathom that the OP would be so concerned about the type of 747 used in the film, when he's not bothered in the slightest that BA probably didn't use 747s on the route at all at the time. I know they used 707s in the '60s and '70s which was a stop-over on the Sydney route at the time. Hard to believe now, but one of the legs was actually TLV-THR (before 1979, of course!). Tristars were also later used, via Larnaca I think.

Far more important is the slur on the Brits, who, it is claimed, refused to help the Americans. That couldn't be further from the truth: the Americans asked the British Ambassador to help, but he was in London at the time. He instructed his secretary in Tehran to start looking for the Americans, which he did, managing to drive around Tehran in his imported Austin Maxi till he found them, then brought them to a safe house where his wife cooked pasta for them, until they could be delivered to the Canadians.

Apart from that, and the ridiculous overdramatised escape (completely wrong) at the end, it was a great film. Despite its flaws, it deserved the Oscar IMHO.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1024 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8449 times:

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 -- or at least ultra-realistic LOOKING since the film makers got no cooperation from the Air Force -- at a time when most movie flight decks had the head and elbow room of the average kitchen and virtually no instrumentation.

"Fate is the Hunter" suffered badly from this latter problem plus a totally fake airplane, but when I got to the end of the movie I said to my (very young) self: Wow, now that's got to be the way accidents happen in the real world; not some grizzled flight engineer saying She'll make it, Skipper, if that crankshaft in #3 holds together and John Wayne says Well, Hank, you see to it she holds together, and they take off and, of course, over the middle of the Atlantic #3 bursts into flame and John pulls off an unbelievable ditching and everybody but one token victim survives.


User currently offlineAirxliban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 54
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8467 times:

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.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 28):
The production team went a long way to get the details right, but there is a limit to how far you're going to go with historical accuracies, and budget would be the overriding factor. .


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 amount of effort.

[Edited 2013-03-01 13:56:58]


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlinedalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

The actual aircraft that they flew out on was this one.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eduard Marmet



Getting a flyable DC-8-62 is a pretty tall order these days.


User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8120 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 28):
I find it hard to fathom that the OP would be so concerned about the type of 747 used in the film, when he's not bothered in the slightest that BA probably didn't use 747s on the route at all at the time.

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 in the first place, yet be offended by which variant was depicted. Here I am complaining because they used the wrong kind of the wrong plane.

Still though, if you're going to show a plane at all, at least show one that actually existed at the time. Not bothering to do so is laziness. The choice of going with a 747 instead of a DC-8 can at least be argued on dramatic merits. Using a model that didn't exist yet is simply incoherent.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8030 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
I don't understand why flubs like these are so annoyingly common in movies

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 the rest of the movie is a total work of fiction?


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 26
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AVIATEUR (Reply 33):
Still though, if you're going to show a plane at all, at least show one that actually existed at the time. Not bothering to do so is laziness.

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 the right variant? Again, most people probably don't know that different variants of the same aircraft exist!

But then again, they also could have said "close 'nuff" since the majority of the audience wouldn't know one way or another!



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5651 posts, RR: 20
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 28):
The production team went a long way to get the details right, but there is a limit to how far you're going to go with historical accuracies, and budget would be the overriding factor.

Not necessarily. Makers of The Baader Meinhof Complex, a movie about the infamous leftist terrorist group made an exceptional effort (by Hollywood standards) to accurately depict the events to the extent that e.g. license plates of cars were identical to those involved (not to mention correct make and color) in actual events. They simply did their homework and made a decent research in archives. Budget of the movie was "mere" $20 million.

[Edited 2013-03-01 15:28:30]

User currently offlinesteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7803 times:

If I remember correctly, Jarhead featured a TWA 747-400 or -300 which I thought was an interesting innovation...


eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7613 times:

Quoting B2468 (Reply 23):
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.

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 effects, but not, unlike for other movie awards, a category for "best props". As far as I am aware, Argo did not win any Oscar in one of the categories that relate to any of those aspects.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 36):
Not necessarily. Makers of The Baader Meinhof Complex, a movie about the infamous leftist terrorist group made an exceptional effort (by Hollywood standards) to accurately depict the events to the extent that e.g. license plates of cars were identical to those involved (not to mention correct make and color) in actual events. They simply did their homework and made a decent research in archives. Budget of the movie was "mere" $20 million.

Well. getting some period number plates produced is way easier than mustering a Swissair DC8...


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Quoting B2468 (Reply 26):
However, there were just some things that did not strike me as "Oscar Quality".

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 extra points for that.

Ultimately, Argo was a story about a very uneventful rescue of 6 people who were stuck in a mansion (or actually, 2 mansions). The reality of the story, at least the in Iran part, was that after they got to the embassy, they hung around for like a week, were escorted to the airport, and left. No chase, no scouting locations, no detention at the airport. They did call the "production office" to make sure it existed, then let them leave the country.

So all the other stuff in the movie is there to take an amusing story and make it compelling. Director and screenplay did a good job there. But as a production, it was mediocre. It was not the best picture. I haven't seen them all yet to know which should have won, but as a production, it probably should have been the Batman movie. Not the best story or acting, but a well done movie on a level above Argo, Silver Linings, and Amour. Maybe Pi or ZDT were better movies, I don't know. Lincoln won for what it deserved: best actor.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6781 times:

Quoting dalmd88 (Reply 32):

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 could have obtained tons and tons of DC-8 footage, they could have applied the correct color scheme to the aircraft by CGI... when "Jurassic Park" featured life-like dinosaurs in 1993, a photo-realistic Swissair DC-8 could have been rendered by the CGI department.

What bother's me is that many things are done halfway right when the resources are there to do something perfectly. But as long as less than 1% of the moviegoers are aviation aficionados, they will save their $$$ where it will hurt the least.

Remember "Die Another Day", an aviation-related trainwreck in the form of a James Bond movie. It was the highest-grossing Bond movie up to and including the year 2002.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6388 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 36):
events to the extent that e.g. license plates of cars were identical to those involved (not to mention correct make and color) in actual events. They simply did their homework and made a decent research in archives.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 40):
They could have obtained tons and tons of DC-8 footage, they could have applied the correct color scheme to the aircraft by CGI... when "Jurassic Park" featured life-like dinosaurs in 1993, a photo-realistic Swissair DC-8 could have been rendered by the CGI department.

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 something as large as an aircraft.



Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5651 posts, RR: 20
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6298 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 38):
Well. getting some period number plates produced is way easier than mustering a Swissair DC8...

a) My point was the degree of attention to detail....  
b) If Mayday producers can be bothered to include accurate, computer generated/remastered images of airliners in their documentaries, why not Hollwood?


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1947 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

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 staff made. The entire Canadian Parliamnent met in secret to authoritze passports for the Americans. La Presse had already figured out the plot but did not print it in the paper to allow the plan to follow through. None of this was depicted.

2) Ken Taylor was not even invited to the screening at the Toronto International Film Festival. He has publicly expressed his displeasure with the film and done so in person to Ben Affleck.

Not getting the airplane's right or having police cars chase down a 747? That doesn't bother me as much as not giving sufficient credit to the man who really put his life on the line to get out nationals of another country.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

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.nutters crowd.

That is all that matters for the producers and the director. After all they were not after an Oscar in the documentary category. I guess when confronted with the complaint Ben Affleck would give the thread starter a confused look (like in "where are the guys with straitjackets"), then pull out his wallet, fork out 20 USD and tell him to buy a justplanes video.  


User currently offlineAVIATEUR From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

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 movie. Plenty of drama and tension, with no goofy chase scenes or half-assed special effects.

I'm sure many of you have seen it: the final scene unfolds at Kennedy Airport, where bankrobber Al Pacino is captured and handcuffed against a cop car, his accomplice shot through the head. In the background is a noisily idling jetliner, which Pacino thought would be his getaway plane. The plane is a Convair CV-990, a now-extinct, four-engine jet that was an uncommon sight even in '75. It's shown in the colors of Modern Air, a real life charter carrier at the time.

(What a great name that was: Modern Air. Today we have nonsense like "AirTran.")

'Dog Day Afternoon' was one of few major motion pictures recorded with no music whatsoever. There's no soundtrack, no backing score. Yet that closing scene is all about sound. Airplane sound. The earsplitting whine of the Convair's early-generation engines, and the roar of unseen planes taking off.


They don't make 'em like that no more.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6160 times:

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 we won't notice things like cars... what if the cars in the movie were cars 4 years after the event? What if the AKs shown were manufactured in Bulgaria instead of __insert wherever Iranian AKs came from__. Most of yall wouldn't care if the cars were off, most would have no idea about the AKs (I'm a gun enthusiast and I have no idea.)

What if they were wearing a brand of clothes made a few years after? I can go on and on, but you get my point. If they wanted to please every little group and make everything perfect, they'd spend years and millions researching single scenes.

If we got an aviation nerd in Hollywood, I'm sure the planes in them might be 100% on, but the cars could be off pissing off cars.net or something.

I say be happy it wasn't a KLM 747 taking off and an MD-80 interior, then showing another outside view of a 737... I've seen that before...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6177 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 40):
What bother's me is that many things are done halfway right when the resources are there to do something perfectly. But as long as less than 1% of the moviegoers are aviation aficionados, they will save their $$$ where it will hurt the least.

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 they care that Canada did most of the work, not the CIA. Or that the hostages were able to go outside, and were not confined indoors for the whole time.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 38):
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 effects, but not, unlike for other movie awards, a category for "best props".

Sure there is, it's called "Best Production Design". The movie Lincoln won this year.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6004 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 48):
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 38):
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 effects, but not, unlike for other movie awards, a category for "best props".

Sure there is, it's called "Best Production Design". The movie Lincoln won this year.

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:

Quote:
NOMINEES BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Anna Karenina, Production Design: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Production Design: Dan Hennah; Set Decoration: Ra Vincent and Simon Bright
Les Misérables, Production Design: Eve Stewart; Set Decoration: Anna Lynch-Robinson
Life of Pi, Production Design: David Gropman; Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
Lincoln, Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Jim Erickson


User currently offlinebirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5927 times:

Quoting LJ (Reply 7):
The aircraft or vehicles used are part of that. If you look at the list of goofs for Argo you wonder how this can be an Oscar winning film...

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 concerns. I listened to a BBC interview of one of the characters portrayed in the movie, and she was very disappointed in the movie's recounting of events.

Ahh, but I digress... This is about aircraft after all. I think they should pic an aircraft that just looks cool. Like a 747-SP.  



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlinempsrent From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5667 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 43):
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 staff made. The entire Canadian Parliamnent met in secret to authoritze passports for the Americans. La Presse had already figured out the plot but did not print it in the paper to allow the plan to follow through. None of this was depicted.2) Ken Taylor was not even invited to the screening at the Toronto International Film Festival. He has publicly expressed his displeasure with the film and done so in person to Ben Affleck.Not getting the airplane's right or having police cars chase down a 747? That doesn't bother me as much as not giving sufficient credit to the man who really put his life on the line to get out nationals of another country.

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 guy who was really there.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/...n-caper/article9044112/?cmpid=rss1


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
What irks me is that these airplane scenes were, quite clearly, digitalized fakes.
Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
The Swissair scenes, in the film's closing minutes, were no better. What a waste.

Totally spoiled an otherwise great film. There was no need for that ridiculous runway scene followed by the all-American whoop fest.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineChazPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4673 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
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.

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 it's outboard engine at times, which as we all know would blow the vehicles off into oblivion in real life. Hollywood dramatization at its finest - nothing new.

But I do agree that the whole scene was over the top and really unnecessary. If Affleck & Co. had wanted to close out that movie in style, they'd have done it in a a classic way of films of that era, which didn't need to force the action + drama down the viewer's throats. Much was left to the audience to interpret themselves on the context, and when it was down well it worked really well. Alas, a different time and generation. Today we we so saturated with drama and violence that unless it's throw right into our faces it goes way over our heads.


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

Almost ALL movies get the planes wrong ... almost ALL. I don't remember a single movie where they accurately depicted the airplanes, engines, wheels, and other things related from start to finish. Many times it starts with a 737 flying, then a flying DC-10 appears, and then a 747 lands. Think of that in all combinations possible. So there's no point even talking about it unless you accept that movies DO NOT care about this particular thing (which we a-nutters so passionately care about) ... because probably 99.99% audience don't give a $h!t.

User currently offlineDTWSXM From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Reply 10):


You are absolutely right. Such details as correct fabric for clothing and proper dialect are given great attention. You question is quite valid, why can't they put as much effort into getting the aircraft right? There are obviously many experts, some are members of this forum. Why can't Hollywood find someone with some shred of knowledge to consult?

Cheers!
Chris



Sláinte
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3619 times:

Quoting DTWSXM (Reply 55):
You question is quite valid, why can't they put as much effort into getting the aircraft right?

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, feel and pace of the movie they wanted to make overall. A lot of movies take such liberties. The re-entry sequence of Apollo 13 is one example, where not everything was done frame-by-frame second-by-second in terms of historical accuracy when compared to the video libraries which preserved the original news broadcasts. Of course, there was no YouTube in 1995 to run home from the theater to compare it to.  

Sometimes you just have to sit back, suspend belief, and enjoy a night out at the movies. Flubs and all.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

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 Turkey. Turks look Nothing like Persians. Hollywood is and always been about illusions. Always has been that way. I could go on....Tehrans air is amost never crystal clear like every day in the film, the Brits never turned the Americans away like the dialog suggests, lots of liberties taken. I dont even want to get into the inaccuricies used in the show I work on currently.

[Edited 2013-03-01 20:44:27]

User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 54):
I don't remember a single movie where they accurately depicted the airplanes, engines, wheels, and other things related from start to finish.

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; Executive Decision (unrealistic as the scenario may have been, the 747 remained), and the movie about the doomed Aloha flight, which kept the 737-200 (instead of subbing another variant).



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTWSXM (Reply 55):
Quoting AVIATEUR (Reply 10):


You are absolutely right. Such details as correct fabric for clothing and proper dialect are given great attention. You question is quite valid, why can't they put as much effort into getting the aircraft right? There are obviously many experts, some are members of this forum. Why can't Hollywood find someone with some shred of knowledge to consult?

Cheers!
Chris

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 historically accurate.

While aviation is important to us and might seem like a priority, IT'S NOT.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePolaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

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 correct so why would the aircraft be historically correct? Ideally, both history and the aircraft would be reflected correctly.

User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 18):

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 Mexico.


User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):

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 realistic as possible in all of his sets, filling them with accurate background items, even things most people would never notice, not to mention the costumes and other details, in order to create the verisimilitude that allowed him to carry the viewer into bizarre psychological territory.

Offhand, I can't recall any aircraft that featured in his movies except in Torn Curtain (1966), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1955), and of course the biplane crop duster in North By Northwest (1959), which also featured scenes shot around the NWA check-in area at O'Hare. One thing you see in many, many Hitchcock films, however, is TRAINS, which fascinated him, and they were always perfectly accurate representations of the real thing, from the claustrophobic The Lady Vanishes (1938) to the opening scenes of Strangers on a Train (1951) to the extensive recreations of the New York Central 20th Century Limited in North By Northwest....

This is what contributes to a great cinematic experience and to Hitch's continuing attraction to modern viewers. The makers of Argo obviously are not at that level. Especially disappointing, since they were dramatising a watershed moment in U.S. history and chose to give the film's aircraft depictions short shrift.

Lame, IMO. Such lapses as theirs really do impinge on the "suspension of disbelief" that is essential for a movie to be truly effective.

Cheers,

Scottie


BTW, it's annoying how the mods have moved your thread now to "Non-Aviation".
???

[Edited 2013-03-01 22:35:14]

User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 47):
Quoting DTWSXM (Reply 55):
Why can't Hollywood find someone with some shred of knowledge to consult?

Some guys from a.nut should start an aviation consulting business in L.A.   


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

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 movies with aviation-related scenes were produced by John Travolta!  

User currently offlinevarigb707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):

AVIATEUR

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 scenes of the same flight with two different aircraft types. What the heck?! Oh well...

Anyway, thanks for for sharing.


User currently offlinevarigb707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 62):


BTW, it's annoying how the mods have moved your thread now to "Non-Aviation".
???

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...  


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1206 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

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 aviation. You, too, are just like the directors/producers if you simply focus on what matters to you. So, either criticize everything that was wrong in the movie (and spend the hundreds of hours figuring out what all those things were) or sit down and shut up.

The movie was a hit. That is exactly what the writers, directors, and producers are supposed to do: make a movie that generates more revenue than it cost to make the movie. You obviously still saw it, so big effing deal that you didn't like some of the details - you contributed to the movie's success.

Just like Apple should try to patent every silly idea they come up with and then sue companies who infringe into oblivion. I don't like them for doing it, but they have a responsibility to their shareholders to do so.


...and I'm only being as harsh as you were on the producers.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 67):
By your standard, there are hundreds of other things wrong in the movie, and how dare you focus only on aviation.

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 he's right to focus on the suckiest bits. They really were stupid.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6095 posts, RR: 31
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 42):
b) If Mayday producers can be bothered to include accurate, computer generated/remastered images of airliners in their documentaries, why not Hollwood?

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 a DC-9-32
2) The China Airlines that went acrobatic over the Pacific en route to LAX. They show a 744 and it was a 747SP

Heresy!! (and stupid) because they even get the uniforms of the crew right.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 58):
(cheesy as it was, stayed true to the L10-11);

Maybe, but I´m sure you noticed Wesley Snipes forces them to land when he cuts some wiring to "shut off the fuel" And when they land they engage the thrust reversers...

I´m happy I realized, by being on this site, that I´m not the only nut that notices these things.



MGGS
User currently offlinebwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1366 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

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 and then they just throw it all away by that stupid chase scene.


I love my Airport Job! :)
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10864 posts, RR: 38
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
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:

They should have looked at hiring A.netters as consultants for the film regarding aviation and airplanes.

Such mistakes would not have existed it would have given the film more credibility.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bwest (Reply 70):
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 and then they just throw it all away by that stupid chase scene.

  

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 71):
Such mistakes would not have existed it would have given the film more credibility.

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 lack of judgement. There was just no need at all for that silly slice of action, and the icing on the cake was the ridiculous, Top Gun-style whooping and back-slapping. So predictable, so cheesy. A real shame. One of those films that had the potential to be truly excellent, and ended up pretty mediocre.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13154 posts, RR: 78
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 28):
Far more important is the slur on the Brits, who, it is claimed, refused to help the Americans. That couldn't be further from the truth: the Americans asked the British Ambassador to help, but he was in London at the time. He instructed his secretary in Tehran to start looking for the Americans, which he did, managing to drive around Tehran in his imported Austin Maxi till he found them, then brought them to a safe house where his wife cooked pasta for them, until they could be delivered to the Canadians.


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 the Americans, just brushed it off.
Typical of the casual Hollywood contempt, in particular for the one nation it is still OK to slur, the UK.
Call it the 'Mel Gibson effect'.

Quoting ytz (Reply 43):
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 staff made. The entire Canadian Parliamnent met in secret to authoritze passports for the Americans. La Presse had already figured out the plot but did not print it in the paper to allow the plan to follow through. None of this was depicted.

2) Ken Taylor was not even invited to the screening at the Toronto International Film Festival. He has publicly expressed his displeasure with the film and done so in person to Ben Affleck.

Not getting the airplane's right or having police cars chase down a 747? That doesn't bother me as much as not giving sufficient credit to the man who really put his life on the line to get out nationals of another country.

You wait, when they do a film about getting the aircraft on the ground on 9/11 (broader than the excellent United 93), they'll have the Canadians turning away US airliners.
You are second on the list of the OK for Hollywood to lie about.

Before anyone says 'so what, just a movie', imagine if United 93 (British director) had gone and distorted the film?
And movies DO have an affect over time on attitudes, why do you think so much is spent on product placement and why the US military only collaborate with very hagiographic depictions of the armed forces?
Considering this period and this region, they haven't made one called 'Eagle Claw' or 'Desert One' have they?


User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

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 know you all know this, but few really care if it's a -300, -400 or if Swissair did not serve Tehran on Wednesdays..

Granted I too found the end chase scene to be a bit over the top, but had I not known it was based on certain events, I would have not thought anything over dramatic about it. But even knowing the situation, I still did not realzie that the hostages arrived in Switzerland before the Iranian authorities figured out they were gone. I happened to run across a very recent Jimmy Carter interview on TV where he mentioned that.

I frequent a UK board and whenever WWII seems to be mentioned someone always brings up the Matthew McConaughy film "U571" about how inaccurate it is regarding the Brits contribution to WWII. People should not base their knowledge of world events on Hollywood productions.

Like I say, it's not a documentary. The UK film industry is free to get Baz Luhrman to direct a film on events should they wish.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 74):

Granted I too found the end chase scene to be a bit over the top, but had I not known it was based on certain events, I would have not thought anything over dramatic about it

I was totally unfamiliar with the real life story, but the end bits still stuck out to me as unbelievably crap.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 74):
the Matthew McConaughy film "U571"

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 rumor about the portrayal of Alexander in the same-called movie by Oliver Stone. Films are taken earnest. Things have to be seen to be believed.

You never go to the movies while acknowledging the possibility that you're being lied to. You either expect more or less the truth, or the story is clearly invented (like "Inception", or "Jurassic Park"). After walking out of the movie, you're sure to have seen and heard some kind of truth. And nothing is going to destroy your illusions.

In a movie, you can show things that are blatantly false as long as they are credible enough (otherwise, the story wouldn't work). When a newspaper article says that this and that is portrayed wrongly, how many moviegoers bother reading that article?

They trust the film, because they've paid more to see the movie than to read the newspaper stuff.

I love films, and the "propaganda" effect of movies is the stuff that bothers me when something is displayed incorrectly. One may remember John Wayne's completely uncritical Vietnam movie, "The Green Berets", while "Apocalypse Now" and Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" are shredding preconceptions and illusions into pieces.


David

[Edited 2013-03-03 20:13:37]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 74):
Like I say, it's not a documentary. The UK film industry is free to get Baz Luhrman to direct a film on events should they wish.

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 Jima in the Pacific. Only instead of a bunch of US marines raising the stars and stripes on Mt. Suribachi, lets make them Royal Marines and have them haul up a Union Jack.

Or better yet -- recast the Battle of Midway as a Royal Navy victory (they can list the US carriers in the credits, just to be fair).

Wonder how that would fly in the land of the free.

Bottom line here -- Argo gets the history totally skewed -- that was a 90% Canadian operation and the movie made it look like the CIA did it. If they can do that without blushing who cares about the airplanes?

Everyone says what's the big deal it's only a movie. But far too many people get their understanding of history from movies.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 75):
I was totally unfamiliar with the real life story, but the end bits still stuck out to me as unbelievably crap.

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 mentioned letting the audience come to their own conclusions, but that could have worked too, but we didn't write the script. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Midnight Express" where Brad Davis walks out of the Turkish prison. No gunshot, no chase, no manhunt, no high drama, just him walking out free, then the credits come on and show the real Billy Hayes in snapshots with his family. But like I said, we didn't write the script.

Quoting arrow (Reply 77):
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 Jima in the Pacific. Only instead of a bunch of US marines raising the stars and stripes on Mt. Suribachi, lets make them Royal Marines and have them haul up a Union Jack.

Or better yet -- recast the Battle of Midway as a Royal Navy victory (they can list the US carriers in the credits, just to be fair).

Wonder how that would fly in the land of the free.

In the land of the free, they are free to do that if they wish. They can make a fictionalized account based on events taken place And the public, like on this thread, are free to gauge whatever inaccuracies may or may not be valid. Being free to do so does not equate being free of criticism. That's where you mix it up, or at least your attempt at scenariolizing fiction.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5619 posts, RR: 32
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 78):
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Midnight Express" where Brad Davis walks out of the Turkish prison. No gunshot, no chase, no manhunt, no high drama, just him walking out free, then the credits come on and show the real Billy Hayes in snapshots with his family. But like I said, we didn't write the script.

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 frantically rowed, heading for Greece. IIRC the boat capsized at some stage and he swam to dry land, which I think was still Turkish territory. He holed up in a hotel for a few days, dyed his hair and took a bus to the border. After that there was a dramatic escape across a river, where he landed, exhausted, finally on Greek territory. For once a Holllywood film actually downplayed something.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13154 posts, RR: 78
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 74):
People should not base their knowledge of world events on Hollywood productions.

Like I say, it's not a documentary. The UK film industry is free to get Baz Luhrman to direct a film on events should they wish.

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. The 1950's being the heyday of the genre.

When you think about it, maybe they've missed a few tricks. The 1980 storming of the Iranian Embassy in London by the SAS, to end a siege was very film-able. Better yet, how a handful of them held out against several hundred insurgents in Oman in 1972.
Only one I recall on the Falklands and that was about a solider who got lost in a battle and was accused of going AWOL. Mostly set back in the UK afterwards too.

Baz however, is Australian. Didn't he do some 'epic' where he depicts the Japanese bombing of Darwin in 1942 but added a wholly fictional ground raid on the city by enemy troops?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 76):
You rather believe a film than a leaflet. That's why there was a lot of rumor about the portrayal of Alexander in the same-called movie by Oliver Stone. Films are taken earnest. Things have to be seen to be believed.

What about Stone's 'JFK'? A brilliant piece of film-making but utter nonsense. Many took it as fact though.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 80):
What about Stone's 'JFK'? A brilliant piece of film-making but utter nonsense. Many took it as fact though.

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 the Moon", the French "documentary" that proves that NASA has faked the landing on the moon?

First, it begins very convincing. Would you distrust a documentary film crew that interviews Donald Rumsfeld and Alexander Haig? But in the end, the clues and hints get less and less subtle... and more and more hilarious. Despite my intimate knowledge of that movie's topics I completely missed the point where it begins to poke fun at the viewer.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1206 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Quoting arrow (Reply 77):
Everyone says what's the big deal it's only a movie. But far too many people get their understanding of history from movies.

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. Probably more than history sells. Yeah, it sucks if you care about something... but if there's one thing I've learned at only 23 years old, I know the majority of people in the movie going population simply don't care about anything other than the "bad call" in their favorite sporting event (go team go! score a goal unit!), whether their beer is cold enough, or whether their food came out in a decent amount of time. In essence, if it doesn't directly impact them, their attitude is something like "why the f*ck would I care?"

Sorry. I'll take my toys and go somewhere else to play for now so I won't keep raining on the parade.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 82):
You're missing the point. The movie was a commercial success.

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 understand that they will embellish the story in whatever way they need to to guarantee that.

My point is that we, as as population, are increasingly getting our view of history from movie makers whose only interest is telling a good story and making scads of money; from a news media that has its own agenda based on that "good story" mantra (note my little homily at the bottom), and from high profile politicians with their own vote-getting priorities.

Case in point: shortly after 9/11 a number of high profile politicians (including Hilary Clinton) told the world that the terrorists came into the US through Canada. Not one of them did. But to this day Clinton has never set that record straight, nor has she apologized for saying it. As a result, if you take a poll now among Americans, a significant number still believe it's true. Worse than that, it gets repeated by other high profile folks -- the most recent being Janet Napolitano. She at least had the grace to retract it, although not until the Ambassador took a run at her.

When you combine all this with the general decline in education across the continent, you can see how movies like Argo and U-571, a story-obsessed news media, and politicians who tell the truth only when it suits their purposes -- will all lead to a very poorly informed populace with opinions based on fallacies rather than facts. Countries often go to war on those fallacies, Iraq being perhaps the latest example of it.

Sorry, but it bothers me a lot when historical truth is so cavalierly chucked away.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13154 posts, RR: 78
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

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 - we know the latter is often needed but can be done without making stuff up.
How many nations had embassies in Iran in 1979 - most probably.
So if it was the case that the Americans were denied help from some (I vaguely recall that being the case at the time), why pick out the two nations that DID risk their people to help?
I also recall from reports back then that the UK's people in Tehran HAD taken great risks to attempt to help the US staff.

(And we are, often in US/Hollywood mythology, supposed to be the 'ungrateful' ones).


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):
Not to nitpick

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 fire service and always catches tech errors that are related to his line of work but I do the same from an LEO sense. And I'm talking about simple, no-brainer stuff like showing the officers responding to a run in a fully marked car (with a light bar) and arriving at the scene in a semi marked car (no light bar). Or, my favorite of all, showing the exterior or a patrol car running code 3 but all you hear is a siren - the vehicle doesn't have any of the emergency lights activated. This is obviously due to dubbing in the siren sound but one would think that blaring error would be caught yet I see it made over and over again. And don't get me started on incorrect depiction of police tactics and procedures. I've learned to just laugh it off as the movie makers wanting to save some dough and forgoing hiring a tech adviser who's either in law enforcement or was at one time. I am sure the same applied to the makers of Argo. And you have to admit, when they completely strayed from the facts of the escape of the 6 Americans from Iran and fabricated many other "facts" in order to Hollywoodize the film, can you really expect them to care about the correct a/c being depicted in the film?


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2068 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Quoting AVIATEUR (Thread starter):

99.99 percent of world's population don't care about aicraft types.  



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days ago) and read 1579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 THAT good. My favourite scene was the line at the end where the government of Canada thanks the CIA for its assistance -- kinda turns the whole plot line on its ear -- but apparently that was a requirement to keep Ken Taylor moderately happy, or at least less unhappy.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 86):
99.99 percent of world's population don't care about aicraft types.

Must admit, as an airplane buff, I paid zero attention to what models were being used. The car chase on the runway was a bit hokey (inaccurate too, but that doesn't bother me quite so much. Apparently they passed through the airport with little trouble -- which makes for a bad movie).

Wonder what Hollywood will skew next. Given it's the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, I see lots of scope there for revisionist history. Anyone remember Johnnie Horton's ditty "Battle of New Orleans?" That pissed the Brits so much he wrote another war ditty called "Sink the Bismarck" in which the Brits were the heroes. I love the entertainment biz.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13154 posts, RR: 78
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

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 Commonwealth aircrew (and therefore casualties) in Bomber Command, he'd likely be a safe pair of hands.
However, he'd struggle to get funding for an expensive movie based on a British WW2 event in Hollywood.

Otherwise it could end up being carried out by B-17's under the craggy, hard-bitten but paternalistic to his men, USAAF Commander, played by Mel Gibson.

The film version of the novel 'Enigma' released in 2001, set in the world of code-breaking at Bletchley Park midway through WW2, had serious pressure from Hollywood to 'move' Bletchley Park from semi rural England to Philadelphia.
Luckily, the filmmakers got funding from another source to enable them to avoid such a huge historic inaccuracy.
From a German consortium!


User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 74):
I'ts not a documentary, people. It's a Hollywood film based on true events.

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 story are insultingly wrong. Why would anybody producing the film care about the trivial historical accuracies of the airplanes involved if they choose to lie about an actual and significant historical event?

At least President Carter has refuted the timeline in the story. Thanks, Jimmy.  


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