The aircraft used is an actual USAirways A320 . The part where you see sulky walking through the aircraft was shot on the actual 1549 aircraft that is now housed at the Carolina's aviation Museum in CLT . They used precise detail in everything with this movie . From uniforms to even the crew badges .. They got it right all the way .

That is not surprising for a Hanks project ... go read about his attention to detail during the filming of Apollo 13 ... it's pretty amazing.

Sure they got those details right, but where's the attention to detail in the trailer? Some new AA liveries travelled back in time to 2009....

I also noticed a Continental 737 with split scimitar winglets and a Continental Express Embraer E-Jet...which I don't recall them having.

G500 wrote:

is anybody surprised they're making a movie about Sully?

This is America, we'll make money out of everything and anything

"The French invented the croissant, we put cheese, sausage, bacon on them, and figured out a way to sell millions... we simply throw them out of a window and say, here's your croissant you fat bleep bleep" Richard Jeeni

Since you're bringing up the French, here is another one, which fits the questions about whether there actually is a story for this movie:

"Hollywood tells small stories with big budgets, French movies tell big stories with small budgets"

Of course a generalization as there are also silly and brainless French movies and numerous US productions actually are very high brow and great works of cinematographic storytelling (but they are in a minority against the likes of "Fast and Furious 217" or "The nutty professor"). But still lots of truth in it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out .... like Titanic, there's really no suspense here; we know what happened, and what the outcome is ... but it's a great story, and hopefully the movie will do it justice.

ordell wrote:

Just saw an ad for the movie. It opens September 9.

Yeah - I've seen a few. They are not making me feel warm and fuzzy about the movie. I think Tom Hanks is a great actor, so I had/have high hopes, but ...i dunno...

Seems like they are drumming up a bunch of controversy based on the investigation. If you recall, the NTSB report stated that simulations that showed successful return to LGA did not allow for real world trouble shooting, etc. and that the decision to ditch was the correct one. But in the previews, they've shown Hanks responding to criticism about that. Not realistic in the NTSB process nor the actual report.

- From the NTSB Report
"Simulation flights were run to determine whether the accident flight could have landed
successfully at LGA or TEB following the bird strike. The simulations demonstrated that, to
accomplish a successful flight to either airport, the airplane would have to have been turned
toward the airport immediately after the bird strike. The immediate turn did not reflect or account
for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the extent of the
engine thrust loss and decide on a course of action. The one simulator flight that took into
account real-world considerations (a return to LGA runway 13 was attempted after a 35-second
delay) was not successful. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the captain’s decision to ditch on
the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability
that the accident would be survivable. "

-

MaverickTTT wrote:

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 4):That, and isn't this guy already at 14:59 already?
Good grief, THIS.

Sully and Skiles did an amazing thing that day. Sully just managed to turn that single event into a career. I know very few people in the industry who don't roll their eyes at the sound of the name "Sully" these days. Just retire already, man.

Very crass comment. My brother was a captain with US at the time this incident occur. He knows Sully, and says the man really hates the publicity, and didn't want the movie made. Having just seen my first trailer today, the short glimpse of the Airbus as is was close to handing on the Hudson, looked pretty cheesy. Netflix kinda movie for me.

Okay, I have one idea, how they could stretch this movie to a full 90 minutes plus movie. They could show different outcomes. Like at that movie about the cycle courier which was in cinemas a few years ago. Like Hanks (Sully) going through the options in his head, and playing these options out in full length. Like a landing attempt at TEB, LGA, a major street... and then the final landing on the Hudson river.

CARST wrote:

Okay, I have one idea, how they could stretch this movie to a full 90 minutes plus movie. They could show different outcomes. Like at that movie about the cycle courier which was in cinemas a few years ago. Like Hanks (Sully) going through the options in his head, and playing these options out in full length. Like a landing attempt at TEB, LGA, a major street... and then the final landing on the Hudson river.

It's not going to be a documentary about how it could have been done. It's probably going to start with some background about how him and his wife's relationship was strained, he was struggling to make ends meet due to pay cuts in the industry and his pension being flushed down the toilet. Build up through a bunch of frustration that ultimately ends up with him getting on the plane, and doing the flight, then playing out the crash and evac. Next, surely they will go into the typical post crash isolation of the crew, and interrogation and second guessing this crew went through after the crash, and playing out the publicity and such that he went through immediately after. Im sure there will also be undertones of how the industry is in bad shape, and probably a lot about how Sully really felt about the regionals and other pilots in the industry.

CARST wrote:

Okay, I have one idea, how they could stretch this movie to a full 90 minutes plus movie. They could show different outcomes. Like at that movie about the cycle courier which was in cinemas a few years ago. Like Hanks (Sully) going through the options in his head, and playing these options out in full length. Like a landing attempt at TEB, LGA, a major street... and then the final landing on the Hudson river.

You mean "Run Lola Run"? Nice idea, though.

BartSimpson wrote:

CARST wrote:

Okay, I have one idea, how they could stretch this movie to a full 90 minutes plus movie. They could show different outcomes. Like at that movie about the cycle courier which was in cinemas a few years ago. Like Hanks (Sully) going through the options in his head, and playing these options out in full length. Like a landing attempt at TEB, LGA, a major street... and then the final landing on the Hudson river.

You mean "Run Lola Run"? Nice idea, though.

You are right, Run Lola Run was made in a very similar style.

But I was talking about this movie about a cycle courier, "Premium Rush" starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He goes with his bikes through the streets of New York City, mainly Manhattan and in his brain he kind of goes throgh the options on full intersections, like go left, dodge this taxi, right around that biker, crash into the dump truck, then the next option and perhaps another one, but then he finds the right one and passes the intersection (barely) unharmed. Many scenes like that in this movie. Otherwise it would have been just Gordon-Levitt driving is bicycle through the streets of Manhattan.
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6ie1zCkZU
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Another movie that was different, but which style could be used here, too, is "Vantage Point", showing a 20-25 minute story from 5 or 6 different characters.
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDp-08uNH0Y
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443274/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt

Film storyline seems to be parallel to Denzel Washington's Oscar nominated 2012 film "Flight" though that film was totally fiction - and as far as we know Sully didn't have drinking/drug problems.

On a funnier note the fact the birds involved were Canada Geese - the line "Blame Canada" has been tossed around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BppBRCv1Bkg

bmacleod wrote:

On a funnier note the fact the birds involved were Canada Geese - the line "Blame Canada" has been tossed around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BppBRCv1Bkg

Moreover, they were actual Canadian Canada Geese ... the birds involved were a migratory flock, not indigenous to the area (yes, there actually are Canadian geese that live in the NYC area year round).

CARST wrote:

but how on earth, like many here said before, will you stretch an event which took a few minutes, to a 90 minute plus movie?

Even if they show the crash scene from 20 perspectives, show multiple characters, strech the evacutation scene, make it dramatic as fuck and include as many slow-mos as possible, we are up at 30 or 40 minutes. That is still 50 minutes plus to fill with utter nonsense, bullshit to say it directly. I fear the worst and hope for the best...

Maybe that's why you are not in Hollywood making movies for $10M a throw, driving a Bentley, and dating starlets.

astaz wrote:

CARST wrote:

Okay, I have one idea, how they could stretch this movie to a full 90 minutes plus movie. They could show different outcomes. Like at that movie about the cycle courier which was in cinemas a few years ago. Like Hanks (Sully) going through the options in his head, and playing these options out in full length. Like a landing attempt at TEB, LGA, a major street... and then the final landing on the Hudson river.

It's not going to be a documentary about how it could have been done. It's probably going to start with some background about how him and his wife's relationship was strained, he was struggling to make ends meet due to pay cuts in the industry and his pension being flushed down the toilet. Build up through a bunch of frustration that ultimately ends up with him getting on the plane, and doing the flight, then playing out the crash and evac. Next, surely they will go into the typical post crash isolation of the crew, and interrogation and second guessing this crew went through after the crash, and playing out the publicity and such that he went through immediately after. Im sure there will also be undertones of how the industry is in bad shape, and probably a lot about how Sully really felt about the regionals and other pilots in the industry.

It's pretty obvious from the trailer that this is what it's going to be about.

New trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jT-rNICNPQ

I'm excited to see Sully next week. It looks like they did a good job keeping everything reasonable accurate. However, upon browsing the list of cast on various websites it appears they replaced one of the 3 veteran female flight attendants (Sheila Dail) with a younger male character named Brian Kelly. According to IMDB there are characters named Doreen Welsh & Donna Dent (the other 2 F/As). I'm wondering what happened to Sheila?

I am looking forward to seeing the movie on the big screen when it is released. Saw the promo, got emotional. Yikes. I think this getting emotional in public places will just have to be dealt with. I think this movie, as in a civil aviation movie, and with a happy ending, will be worth seeing at the cinema for sure - as opposed to a smaller screen viewing. Last time I got a tearjerker was the movie Everest. I am reading the book about the BA38 incident (G-YMMM) incidentally, and one of the YouTube videos I watched by a crew member, made similarities between the two. I guess we will all have our opinions on the movie here once we've seen it. I think it will be really well done.

aloha73g wrote:

I'm excited to see Sully next week. It looks like they did a good job keeping everything reasonable accurate. However, upon browsing the list of cast on various websites it appears they replaced one of the 3 veteran female flight attendants (Sheila Dail) with a younger male character named Brian Kelly. According to IMDB there are characters named Doreen Welsh & Donna Dent (the other 2 F/As). I'm wondering what happened to Sheila?

She may have refused to allow her likeness to be used. Movies have to get permission to portray real life people.

ordell wrote:

New trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jT-rNICNPQ

Good trailer. Does anyone hear Hanks saying "brake for impact"? If yes, was that what Sully really said in the heat of the moment? Command would normally be "brace", right?

US retirement age for captains is still 60. They can continue as FO until 65.

mtnwest1979 wrote:

US retirement age for captains is still 60. They can continue as FO until 65.

Not true, at least in the US

sgbroimp wrote:

ordell wrote:

New trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jT-rNICNPQ

Good trailer. Does anyone hear Hanks saying "brake for impact"? If yes, was that what Sully really said in the heat of the moment? Command would normally be "brace", right?

Looked up transcript. It shows "brace". Don't want to sound picky, but this is kind of a surprising goof if true.

Why is that plane's flight called "Cactus?" Was it a holdover from the America West acquisition?

Correct. That was AW's.

They use to make these "made for TV" movies, rather then for the big screen.
Great story, but.

ordell wrote:

Why is that plane's flight called "Cactus?" Was it a holdover from the America West acquisition?

The call sign for USAirways changed from "USAir" to "Cactus" when USAirways and America West merged in 2005 . Adopting the America West call sign . And it wasn't an aqcuistion .. It was a merger .. No one bought anyone . Both airlines were were in the hole . And they needed each other to survive .. This is the plain truth . Others would like to think differently though .

mtnwest1979 wrote:

US retirement age for captains is still 60. They can continue as FO until 65.

That is 100% false .

Critic reviews are 100% on Rotten Tomatoes so far. Really glowing reviews from several users that saw the early release. I think this is going to be a great film. Can't wait to see it.

BTW whatever became of Skiles?

ordell wrote:

BTW whatever became of Skiles?

Found this for Jeff Skiles: http://www.leadingauthorities.com/speak ... kiles.html

He doesn't work for the airline any more and has a new job.. http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/mi ... 3ce6c.html

SWADawg wrote:

Critic reviews are 100% on Rotten Tomatoes so far. Really glowing reviews from several users that saw the early release. I think this is going to be a great film. Can't wait to see it.

I saw an advance screening of the movie. I agree with the above and I will now check out Rotten Tomatoes too. Not commenting further on the movie (here) until others have seen it.

sgbroimp wrote:

Correct. That was HP's.

Fixed that for you.

Erebus wrote:

Anyone have any information about the aircraft used in the movie? Type, Reg, Airline?

No idea Erebus. If you look closely at the trailer though, at least two different A320s are used. There are sequences showing an A320 with the older style cabin and there are scenes with the newer, enhanced interior (different sidewalls, newer lockers and different PSU's)

Oscar talk for Hanks already.

http://deadline.com/2016/09/telluride-f ... 201813187/

It was a very good morning for producer/director Clint Eastwood’s Sully at today’s 10AM Telluride Film Festival screening. The true story of heroic airline pilot Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger’s 2009 crash landing into the Hudson River is having its World Premiere this weekend in advance of its U.S. release next Friday (my full video and print review will appear on Tuesday). The Palm Theatre, the Festival’s largest with 650 seats, was packed and folding chairs had to be brought in to accommodate some of those turned away.

Eastwood and cast members Tom Hanks, Laura Linney and Aaron Eckhart received a standing ovation when they entered to introduce the film, but you could hear a pin drop as the gripping film was playing. There was prolonged applause once the end credits began and a second standing ovation when the group took the stage for a post-screening Q&A.

The crowd, which included Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs and CEO Dawn Hudson sitting directly in front of me, clearly loved the movie which takes a completely different angle that you might expect if you think you already know the Sully story. I would say based on the kind of response the film is getting here you can add it instantly to the list of Best Picture contenders, with Sully kicking off the Fall awards season on September 9. Certainly I hope it puts Tom Hanks’ name seriously in Best Actor contention.

Not surprisingly, with the film opening this weekend, the press junket is well underway and pushing hard ... some nuggets of information :

The actual landing/evacuation sequences were filmed on a sound stage that features an artificial lake and an underwater gimbal system ... they brought in a retired A-320 to fit onto the gimbal for these scenes.

The scenes on the ferry boat were shot on the actual ferries that performed the rescue, on the Hudson, onsite in NYC.

The LaGuardia scenes were also shot on location (they had to get the entire production team -- including extras -- special passes to get past TSA into the secure terminal for the shoot). That's why you see the inaccuracies in airline livery, etc ... They couldn't exactly ask American to only fly older planes that day that didn't have the new livery applied. They pretty much had to shoot what was there.

And, as noted above, the interior shots after the evacuation were filmed on the actual 1549 aircraft itself.

While channel surfing the other day I saw Tom H. being interviewed on GMA. He said a water landing is not what passengers expect when flying from "New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charleston, South Carolina" I don't know what is more laughable, his ignorance considering the role he played, or despite all the effort and "Charlottte, USA" commericals they air in places like Los Angeles, many Americans have never heard of it.

VapourTrails wrote:

ordell wrote:

BTW whatever became of Skiles?

Found this for Jeff Skiles: http://www.leadingauthorities.com/speak ... kiles.html

He doesn't work for the airline any more and has a new job.. http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/mi ... 3ce6c.html

He's back flying and is now an A330 FO

Look who's whining.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... s-in-sully

In promotional clips for the movie “Sully,” which portrays the so-called Miracle on the Hudson water landing of a jetliner in 2009, there is little doubt about who the villains are: the accident investigators hounding the pilot after his splashdown.

That’s news to the actual investigators at the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, who gave Captain Chesley Sullenberger high marks in their accident report and credited his quick action that saved lives.

“I think we’re getting the dirty end of the stick here,” said Robert Benzon, a 27-year NTSB veteran who oversaw the investigation before retiring in 2012. “From what I hear, this is somewhere between ‘Sharknado 2’ and ‘Sharknado 3.’ I just hope it isn’t as bad as everyone is telling me it is.”

Not only did the safety board investigators treat Sullenberger respectfully, they took great pains to carefully couch language in the final report so that it didn’t seem critical of a national hero, according to Benzon.

At the risk of having this excerpt removed, I simply have to share this writeup from Holly Hegeman's "Planebusiness Banter" of the amazing lengths AA went to with Warner Brothers to ensure accuracy in this movie, especially so people like us wouldn't trash it:

"Sully" – A Story Too Important to "Screw Up"

Tuesday night in New York at Lincoln Center, Warner Brothers and Malpaso Productions held a star-studded premiere of "Sully" – the movie directed and produced by Clint Eastwood, which chronicles the memoir of Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Sully is more than a little bit famous for a daring piece of flying he performed in January 2009, when he miraculously executed a textbook water landing of a bird-stricken US Airways Airbus A320 in the Hudson River.

After the studio released a teaser trailer the end of June, featuring Tom Hanks, who plays Sully in the movie, AvGeeks everywhere had two big questions about the film.

1. The flight only lasted four minutes. What the heck are they going to fill 2 hours of time with?

2. How badly are they going to mangle the aviation details?

I thought it might be a good idea to talk to Michelle Mohr, Managing Director, Corporate Communications at American Airlines, as I knew she had been working with the folks at Warner Brothers throughout the production of the movie.

Little did I know how much she had been working with them.

Michelle has essentially had two jobs at American for a more than a year. Her normal 40-hour a week job as Managing Director of Corporate Communications, and her other job – working as the airline's representative to Warner Brothers. A job that, as she put it, on the "good weeks" entailed maybe 10-12 hours of extra work. On the "not so good weeks" it was more like an additional 40.

Would she change anything about the last year? I don't think so.

"It's been an incredible experience. You know, you might wonder what it's like to work with these people. You know – Hollywood types. What are they really like? I'll tell you what ...they are the best. The absolute best. Just good decent salt of the earth people committed to telling the story right. Most importantly: there was no drama with these people. The only "drama" that I saw happened behind the camera," Michelle said.

A couple of weeks ago I sat down with Michelle and we talked about American's involvement with the film, and how everyone involved with the movie, from Clint Eastwood to Tom Hanks to Sully to American Airlines wanted, more than anything, to represent what happened as accurately as possible – both on that fateful day in January, and afterwards.

Which brings up the answer to the first question. The movie is, indeed, about more than the four minute flight. The script is adapted from Sully's memoir, "Highest Duty," and details things before, during, and after the flight in Sully's life, including an NTSB investigation into the crash that went on for more than a year, and the media circus that erupted after the crash, and how that changed his life and that of his family.

PBB: What was your main responsibility in working with Warner Brothers?

Michelle: My number one job was to make sure American was represented accurately. And they [Warner Brothers and Clint Eastwood] really wanted to do that. So, this meant a whole lot of things. For instance, we made sure they had access to all the right materials – uniforms, what color nail polish the flight attendants wear, how big can the earrings be. All that. So we went to that level. So that meant, many, many meetings with the flight service department.

One of the funnier moments came when we were filming the scenes at LaGuardia, and the costume designer was there, and they brought out three "customer service" agents. The only problem is they had wings on. So we got that cleared up pretty quickly. (laughs)

We created fake badges, I mean, we had it down to the point where I made sure they had their union pins, their USAPA pins. Their AFA pins. Everything. They wanted, and we wanted, that level of realism. And to show that level of respect.

PBB: I assume American was fully cooperative with Warner Brothers regarding the filming.

Michelle: American was fully cooperative and fully supportive of seeing "Sully" come to light in the hands of Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers pictures.

I want to make this really clear. The producers of the movie were absolutely committed to making sure they got the details of the movie as realistic as possible.

The number one comment and question I've had from our pilots and our employees, after they found out during the last year that I was involved with this project, was, "Michelle, please tell me this is not going to be like Flight. That was their number one concern.

So I assured them that it was not going to be like Flight.

[Editor's Note: Flight was a movie released in 2012, starring Denzel Washington as a washed-up pilot who is alternatively downing alcohol or snorting coke. When he is not flying a plane upside down. A movie, which as Patrick Smith noted in The Daily Beast, "I almost hate to say it, but even Airport ’75—one of the quintessential air-disaster movies, in which Charlton Heston is helicoptered through a hole in a crippled 747—did it better. There is nothing funny about Flight, but should you hear howls of laughter coming from the back of the theater, chances are there’s a pilot in the audience. Laughter, if not tears, is the only fair response to much of what the movie shows."]

Michelle: This is a group of producers that have worked together for a long time. This is their 12th movie together in 20 years. This is one tight knit crew. You're talking about a pretty incredible team that are committed to telling stories truthfully. And that is what they wanted here.

PBB: What was their last movie before this?

Michelle: American Sniper.

PBB: So, for example, the scenes at LaGuardia. Did you guys really shoot footage at the airport?

Michelle: Yes. Your readers will be glad to know that those shots really were shot at LaGuardia Airport, out of one of our gates. Now, having said that, remember that back in 2009, we operated out of a different set of gates, so it's not going to be the exact same set of gates. But they are our gates.

PBB: Because this footage was shot at LaGuardia last fall, will there be some small items that AvGeeks will undoubtedly pick up on – things that simply couldn't be helped I would imagine. The gates obviously are one. I think you talked before we sat down about livery issues as well.

Michelle: Yes, you will see some of the blue Southwest livery. People will also see glimpses of the new American livery. Those will be in some aerial shots they took later. Yeah, you will see some of the new livery in the aerial shots.

I know AvGeeks will go crazy pointing out these inconsistencies, but hey, you know, shooting these aerial shots, there just simply was no way around it.

It was not possible to clear the entire airport for the period of time we would have required. As you can imagine.

Let's remember, it is not a documentary. It's a movie. And knowing how obsessive these guys were about everything else, I can live with those things.

PBB: Besides, how would you go about populating the airport with "correct" liveries. Just can't be done.

Michelle: Right.

[Editor's Note: Watching the movie Tuesday night at the premiere, I did not see any errant tails. It would appear the producers did some fancy photography reconstruction. Either that, or I simply missed the ones that Michelle had alerted me to.]

PBB: Speaking of details, where did they shoot the cockpit scenes? The interior of the aircraft shots?

Michelle: Here's another example of how far they went for authenticity. The producers bought two old US Airways A320s. So, again, for the AvGeeks out there, they put one out at the lake at Universal Studios where "Jaws" was filmed, and they sank it in the water and they did the water evacuation shots out there. I was there for that.

I remember the producers were so excited to show me the footage from that day. We had been working very closely together for about 5 months at that point.

I told them, "Normally, if I were to see one of our planes like this, in the water, my heart would stop." But because I knew what happened…it was okay.

So I got to go on the aircraft. And here again, I can vouch for their efforts at authenticity.

I had been asked to scrounge up copies of our in-flight magazine from January 2009 for them. They were in the seat backs. This particular aircraft they purchased had Wi-Fi. Flight 1549 did not. So they scraped off the Wi-Fi signs. We put a Star Alliance sticker over where the Wi-Fi sticker had been.

The most unbelievable part of the evacuation scene? They did the whole thing in one take. Which blew everyone's mind.

We thought we would have to do two or three. To evacuate 155 people into the lake, we figured we'd have a mistake. Then we'd have to dry everybody off, and start all over. Because some of them have to fall in, you remember.

But they did it, and Eastwood said "Cut" and that was it.

Everybody clapped and cheered and jumped around. We couldn't believe we got it in one take.

However, I will say – for the AvGeeks out there... Those birds are actually America West aircraft….they don't have CFM engines.

PBB: (laughs) But it must have been hard because American has been painting all the older aircraft quite rapidly.

Michelle: Yes, you're right. That was one of the problems with shooting scenes at LaGuardia, because we've been progressing so quickly painting our planes, and thankfully, they wanted to do this before we went through PSS – because of course after that we had no more US Airways, technically.

So things were going to be a bit different after that.

So I put in a call to a dear friend of mine at the IOC and I said, hey, can we make sure we have some of our older A320s at LGA? But of course all of this had to be done without disturbing the schedule. Because we weren't going to pull anything off schedule to do this.

And we didn't.

But I had to make sure we had legacy US Airways A320s that were taking off – because God forbid they shoot an A319. The AvGeeks would have a field day.

So we identified a time at LaGuardia with Loretta Bove, who is our Managing Director at LGA, and actually, she and her team managed the actual crash when it happened. In fact, most of the members of that original team are still there.

PBB: So the team that is there now is essentially the same team that was there for US Airways?

Michelle: Yes, it is. So this was surreal for them, to be going through this.

As you can imagine, they were very personally invested in getting this right.

But yeah, it was just a ton of work trying to work with the PANYNJ and the TSA and trying to make sure there was no operational upset because I did not want to get a call from Robert Isom because there was a D0 delay – right? Or we had some kind of security issue where we would have to clear the terminals.

We did it on a very quiet time on a Saturday. But we still had 100s of people in the terminal and we had to like cordon the areas off and had to have lots of extra security. Remember, we had to have people down on the ramp as well because they needed to take visuals of bags being loaded, and that type of stuff.

Then we actually did some scenes onboard the aircraft. So we had to have security for that as well.

PBB: Sounds like a circus.

Michelle: Yeah, a circus. A controlled circus. Movie sets are always chaotic but I can now tell you they are controlled chaos.

For the casual observer it looks like a mess, but in reality everybody has their job and they are off doing it. But to the untrained eye, it still looks like chaos.

PBB: And the cockpit scenes?

Michelle: They were shot in two places. Both were shot on our actual aircraft.

PBB: So it was not a fake cockpit.

Michelle: No, no. Inside the aircraft. Some shots were done on the aircraft at LaGuardia, but the vast majority of the shots were done using one of the airplanes they purchased. They bought a plane and they kind of cut it in half and put it up on stilts, and put it on a soundstage. Totally wild.

Oh, one other nerdy AvGeek thing. Sounds! Alan Murray (Academy Award winning sound man) came to us and told us that he knew the CFM engines sounded different. But they didn't just need engine sounds, they needed all the dings, the door closing sound. The whole deal.

So I was trying to figure out if we could do a charter flight or what. What we ended up doing? A paint run.

So we got these guys on a paint run. We told them to meet us in Phoenix. And while they were there waiting they were busy walking around the ramp picking up sounds... you know, walking around with those sticks. [Microphones]

Then they went on the paint run to Amarillo. In the middle of the night.

PBB: Glamorous.

Michelle: Right.

PBB: Even better, I hear that Warner Brothers used actual American Airlines pilots in the movie?

Michelle: Yes. There are six actors in the film who are pretty unique. Needless to say they are very special to us. They are five check airmen and one Captain from American. The scenes involving them were shot at our Charlotte Training Center. I think this, again, adds a very important sense of realism to the film.

PBB: How did this come about?

Michelle: When I read the script I felt there was no way any actor could portray the running of the "what-ifs" accurately. I wanted it done right. Again, (raises voice), "We don't want this to be 'Flight!"

So, I made the suggestion that they use six of our own pilots. What is really cool is that two of them were involved in the actual NTSB investigation – Lori Cline and Mike Davis.


PBB: That's just pretty damn cool.

Michelle: I know. So, again, you've got people who did this in real life, and they are acting as themselves in the film. And Sully was thrilled with the idea. Sully was on set that day and hung out with them. Was so glad they were doing this. And he, I think, genuinely appreciated his company's support.

He said, "That is the coolest thing that these guys are doing it."

PBB: Has he seen the film?

Michelle: My understanding is that when he and his wife and daughters saw it in July, he was just blown away.

It was a lot for them to take in. But I hear that they were very impressed with the final product. Remember, this is based on Sully's personal memoir, so it really is about him and what he went through and what he was thinking. It is a very personal movie about Sully. And he's been involved in it every step of the way.

PBB: What was the biggest thing you had not anticipated when you agreed to do this project?

Michelle: I think just to what level of detail they wanted everything. We had actual log books. Every single thing was down to a minute level of detail. They had a technical consultant working with some of our engineers to make sure things were done correctly. That type of thing.

The most challenging aspect – that is easy. The shoot at LaGuardia. That took about 2 months of planning and was very, very hard work from both the producers and from our side.

Then there was Halloween. In the sims in Charlotte. Re-creating the flight. Oh my. "Here we go…hit the geese again. Get a close-up of the altimeter." Four times. Five times. Over and over. Hit the geese again.

After about four hours of doing that…

It is not glamorous work. It's repetitive work. It's hurry up and wait work. I think making a film is much harder than people realize. If you want to do it right.

PBB: Wasn't your Dad a pilot?

Michelle: Yes. Retired pilot and A&P Mechanic. And yeah, this is kind of cool. At the end of the film, kind of like the end of American Sniper – they have a reunion of the actual passengers and a lot of the employees who helped bring the actual aircraft to The Carolinas Museum, and they more or less recreated the party that took place in June 2011, when the aircraft was brought to the museum.

My Dad was my date for that party in June 2011.

My Dad never asks me for anything. But last summer, when he found out I was going to be involved with the film, he asked, he pleaded with me. "If you are going to do anything on set, can I please come one day and watch you."

So yes, he not only got to watch me, but he got a little part as an extra in the last scene that recreates that party. So now he's the only member of the family that can say he's been directed by Clint Eastwood.

PBB: What's Clint Eastwood like?

Michelle: Totally nice. Just normal. Low key. Very tall. Probably 6' 4". I didn't think he'd be a warm guy. He's very warm and kind.

PBB: I would have thought he would be pretty tightly wound.

Michelle: No, he doesn't say a lot. I think because he doesn't need to. Just good people.

PBB: Admit it. Aren’t you just a tad disappointed that this project is now about to hit the big screen? I mean, how can dealing with cranky, bothersome members of the press ever come close to all this?

Michelle: This has been a once-in-a-lifetime experience and it will be a thrill to see Sully's story come to the big screen in the hands of master storytellers. But there's no disappointment on my end that the experience will be over, it's been a lot of work on top of my regular job, which is plenty exciting. You never know what the day will have in store for you in airline communications: One minute you can be talking to colleagues and reporters about snazzy new inflight entertainment options and then the next, the effects of a massive weather system that is disrupting operations or an emotional support pig that was booted from a flight for being, well, a bit of a pig.

PBB: I guess you never dreamed back on January 15, 2009 that you'd be sitting here, getting ready for the movie's premiere in New York, having had the opportunity you've had.

Michelle: What a team to work with. I am honored to have had the chance to represent this company on this project and I've had a heck of a good time doing it.

I always say that January 15, 2009, [pause], excuse me, I get emotional about this, was the most terrifying day that I have ever had in my job and also the one I was most proud of. Nothing has topped it.

What happened filled aviation professionals everywhere with an incredible sense of pride. Because we know what we're capable of. We know what our colleagues are capable of. Regardless of the uniform.

And I think what happened that day just brings out a lot of pride in our profession and the industry. And it came at a time when we really needed something like this in the country. Because the economic situation was so bleak. It was like a ray of light.

I know it was an accident, but "Miracle on the Hudson." That says it all.

These particular folks happened to wear US Airways uniforms, and we are so proud of them. In fact, three still fly with us. We see them out there all the time.

I'd like our people who were actually involved in it – I want them to feel proud of how the incident was portrayed and how they are portrayed. That is what is most important to us.

PBB: And you think Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers have done that.

Michelle: Yes, I do.

Editor's Note: "Sully," starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, and Laura Linney, opens September 9 at a theater near you.

I just saw this Sully movie a few hours ago (in Thailand). I forgot that a movie was being made about Sully and then I was passing a cinema and saw it was showing today for the first time so I thought why not check it out.

I give it a 6.5-7 / 10.

The graphics are quite good.

There is a little too much back and fourth between the present and past but it is quite easy to follow.

The scenes during the evacuation where probably my favourite.

There were only a few times when you would laugh during the film, but the last line of the film (the FO's response to the "would you do anything different?" question) got the most laughs and made for a good, but sudden, ending to the film.

It's worth seeing for those into aviation, but not so much for those not.

There were about 25 people in a cinema with about 700 seats

Former NTSB investigators have beef with movie "Sully":

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-ntsb ... vie-sully/

They took two 320's out of the desert to make the movie and cut one in half to facilitate the filming. Does anyone know what the registration numbers of these a/c were?

Yflyer wrote:

Former NTSB investigators have beef with movie "Sully":

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-ntsb ... vie-sully/

**Don't read if you don't want a summary of the movie**

I don't blame them. I cursed them a few times throughout the movie for the way they acted. The entire movie was pretty much about Sully having to defend his decision to ditch, whilst the NTSB were grilling him for not returning to LGA or heading to Teterboro - which Airbus simulations said he could make. That's pretty much the story. The NTSB come across as real (badword). Despite being a movie, it does make them look bad. It's not until the very end that they consider the human factors and time needed to make decisions in an unprecedented event - time that if taken would have left Sully with no other choice other than ditching, meaning he made the correct decision.

777Jet wrote:

**Don't read if you don't want a summary of the movie**

I don't blame them. I cursed them a few times throughout the movie for the way they acted. The entire movie was pretty much about Sully having to defend his decision to ditch, whilst the NTSB were grilling him for not returning to LGA or heading to Teterboro - which Airbus simulations said he could make. That's pretty much the story. The NTSB come across as real (badword). Despite being a movie, it does make them look bad. It's not until the very end that they consider the human factors and time needed to make decisions in an unprecedented event - time that if taken would have left Sully with no other choice other than ditching, meaning he made the correct decision.

Thanks 777Jet, that is a good summary. IIRC they re-ran the simulations, because Sully disputed the findings as they clearly did not take into account those human factors?

The way they acted? Sorry, I had to read that twice, I interpreted it as the acting firstly, which IMHO was excellent, oh but yeah, they were very hard on him.

My 2c about the movie: I liked how the FO Skiles was portrayed in the movie, it gave it some balance, after all, it was a two-person crew. And I liked the way they gave him the last line in the film!

There is some recall of 9/11 in the film. Given the event happened less than a decade after that event, I feel the 9/11 factor was justified, if not a bit confronting (first time I have had a reference to that shown on a big screen).

777Jet wrote:

I give it a 6.5-7 / 10.The graphics are quite good.There is a little too much back and fourth between the present and past but it is quite easy to follow.The scenes during the evacuation where probably my favourite.There were only a few times when you would laugh during the film, but the last line of the film (the FO's response to the "would you do anything different?" question) got the most laughs and made for a good, but sudden, ending to the film.It's worth seeing for those into aviation, but not so much for those not.

I thought the graphics were good too. I gave the movie a 8.5-9/10. I thought it started off slow and ho-hum, but the second half was the best, and really got going. The realism was good, I couldn't see anything glaringly silly.

Was it emotional or a tearjerker? No. Wait for the credits to roll to see a special closing, that got me a little bit, but it wasn't a soppy movie.

It was really good seeing it on the big screen, it can give you some appreciation of the noise, ie. when the birds hit, and when the aircraft hit the water, and I could still hear the ground proximity warning system (GPWS) in my head for about an hour or two after leaving the cinema LOL. Can leave you with a sensory overload. The (extreme) cold was also very well portrayed.

For A.netters, there is even the humble snowglobe featured in the movie, that made me smile!

At my cinema there were about 30 people.

drerx7 wrote:

Hmm...kind of a Captain Phillips vibe...maybe a February or October style movie release.

Capt Phillips is not an apple-to-apple comparison. it's WAY better than Sully, to be honest.

I watched this movie simply because I love aviation and has high expectation of the storyline (which is lacking a punch here and there), and also because IMDB rated it so highly (7.9 if it's still). But for me it was a 6, for everything. Tom Hanks doesn't depict Sully's character deep enough, on the contrary he put his own character into Sully's.

The FX is still good though, I watched in IMAX (again because they advertised to be filmed in IMAX camera), and can feel that it is quite a real simulation of what has happened in flight 1549. Vectoring, warning lights, cockpit, etc seems to be quite real. That's the saving grace for the movie.

But yeah, if they put Blake Lively, and Jessica Alba as the stewardess, and other sexy hollywood actresses as the survivor with wet t-shirts, I would rate it as 8.

Overall I thought it was quite good. I thought the NTSB's role was a bit dramatized, and they were made to look like the bad guys, but perhaps that's to be expected - many average people know the story of Cactus 1549, and so I get that they wanted to put a unique spin on it. Regardless, the ATC transmissions were accurate pretty much down to the word, the use of the A320 and Airbus simulators was on-point, and I personally thought that Hanks did a great job, as good of a job as you can re-enacting a story like that. Would give it a solid 8.5-9/10.

As an aside, I didn't notice any errant tails. In fact, the two unique tails that I did notice were Continental tails, which was accurate given that the flight took place in 2009.

VapourTrails wrote:

there is even the humble snowglobe featured in the movie, that made me smile!

No greater symbol of unrequited love exists in this world....

I just watched a Katie Kouric interview with Clint and Tom about the movie. You are all missing the point. It seems the movie will focus a lot on the investigation after the incident, and how the NTSB people appear to be portrayed like hostile prosecutors toward Sully and the Co Pilot. That is how it is being made into a movie. The stress and agony Sully endured after the accident. That is a story arc, his perceived mistreatment.

Also, this is not the first time a real plane crash has been made into a movie. The Air Florida crash in the Potomac was made into a made for TV film in the 80's. I think it was flight 90. Of course, that story had all makings for a movie, heroism, self sacrifice, and a battle for survival. Just like the movie Alive as well.

No, Hollywood will not just make a movie about anything. There are lots of great ideas and events that could be converted to a movie but are overlooked.

klwright69 wrote:

Also, this is not the first time a real plane crash has been made into a movie. The Air Florida crash in the Potomac was made into a made for TV film in the 80's. I think it was flight 90. Of course, that story had all makings for a movie, heroism, self sacrifice, and a battle for survival. Just like the movie Alive as well.

IIRC the UA 232 DC10 crash at Sioux City had the move 'A Thousand Heroes', and the Aloha 737 that lost some of the roof had a move called 'Miracle Landing'. The Air Transat Azores Glider A330 had a move made about the Captain, I think it was called Piche, the Landing of a Man.