Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 ---- SPOILERS ---- Just in case anyone wants to go and see this movie with an open mind, and free from spoilage, don't read the following rant. ---- SPOILERS ---- Rant mode on I just saw a preview for the upcomming movie "Pearl Harbor". I knew it was going to be bad when the first half of the movie preview showed some top American actor (who I think starred in U-571) and some actress were romancing around. When it finally gets to the battle scenes (I figure that the attack will only be secondary, or even tertiary to the plot!) I was dismayed that they refused to use CGI for 100% of the battle scenes. The IJN Carrier shown was just an Essex class in a bad disguise, I am pretty sure they used some modern Burke class frigates portraying ships being hit, and they had some dual air cooled 0.5" machine guns (which were never used in the USN as dual mounts or non-water cooled!), among other problems. When they decided to use CGI it was brilliant (the shot of the deck of the Arizona getting hit by that 800kg bomb was chillingly accurate, and the raid on Wheeler Field was also very well done!). As someone mentioned in an earlier rant, Disney didn't want to do a movie where America loses at the end. I realized how they would get this done by noticing that there were a few shots of B-25's in the preview. The only time that B-25's were used before mid-1942 was during the Dolittle Raid. How they are going to end the film, is, seeing the B-25's fly over Tokyo and drop bombs on old Tojo and flying off into the sunset. Rant mode off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Yep, definitely a movie for those less concerned with historical accuracy. I saw the previews and noticed that some of the footage was shot utilizing the decommissioned Knox class frigates and Adams class destroyers, in the west lock of Pearl Harbor, as a backdrop. Turned me right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 What is more important, substance or appearance? Please, listen to yourselves. As long as they got the MESSAGE right, who CARES what the messenger was decked out in?! (Now, if they got THAT wrong too, then I could understand...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 It will be very hard for someone to top "Tora Tora Tora" as a movie depiction of the Pearl Harbor attack. It's like people trying to do a remake of "Gone With the Wind" or Casablanca", some films need to be left alone. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 No arguement there! Perfection in its own class, I say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Author Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: What is more important, substance or appearance? Please, listen to yourselves. As long as they got the MESSAGE right, who CARES what the messenger was decked out in?! (Now, if they got THAT wrong too, then I could understand...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem is, what is the message? If they cannot show a certain period of history without having it have a happy ending, what kind of message is it? They have the ability to make it look 100% realistic, and if they go through the trouble in getting all of the uniforms to look good, the CGI to perform brilliantly, then why can't they just get the small details right! I don't care about the Machine guns being wrong, or if they buckled their helmets with a J-Type strap instead of a B-Type. I am just sick of them trying to pass off blatantly modern ships for ones from the 1930's! I mean Tora, Tora, Tora was 30 years ago! Also, just like Titanic, they managed to take an exciting event in history and ruin it with a love story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Man is a social animal, and as such prefers to be entertained as opposed to enlightened... It IS a pity, but the fact is that movies require a LOT of money, and "dry" history does not sell to the masses. Gratuitous violence and sex sell best, and so the companies that do this sort of thing are forced to appeal to that market. *shrug* BTW, even with the best CG talent and equipment, REAL ships look a LOT better than computer constructs. I mean, unless you work for "No Such Agency", you just won't have the time or money to make it look THAT good. Besides, the last ships we had that were TRULY vintage were the last Iowa-class BBs, and THEY got retired almost a decade ago... (Damn shame, too) Tora Tora Tora had several advantages. They still had a lot of the ships, the history was NEW and REAL to much of America, and it was a time where nationalism was a common belief, and not considered "misguided" as it frequently is today. (Damn hippies. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 The director "Michael Bay" has completed such masterpieces as Armageddon, The Rock and Bad Boys. Wow. What a resume. It's been reported that he wants this to be "Titanic 2". Big love story set around a huge tragedy. Great. Good God people. Stay away from this smelly pile of horse dung. This is not a movie about Pearl Harbor. It's Hollywood at it's worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 CGI ships can look very good if done well. Look at some of the shots in Titanic where the camera is flying over the ship with people walking around the deck. They are pretty hard to fault and Ive watched them on DVD in slow motion Tora Tora Tora will indeed be a hard movie to top, they really know how to make war movies back then, hehe. I agree with you phoenix, and I find it a pitty that kids will watch movies such as this and U-571 and believe they are true to their word. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 12-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retarded_keydet Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 All modern war movies miss the point on war. War is hell so it is almost always a tragedy not something where the "good guys" win like some sort of cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: I just saw a preview for the upcomming movie "Pearl Harbor". I knew it was going to be bad when the first half of the movie preview showed some top American actor (who I think starred in U-571) and some actress were romancing around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was Ben Affleck, who I don't thikn was in that bomb of a sub movie, but could be wrong since I'm probably blocking quite a bit out of my memory. Having strong non war movie subplots is probably the only way a monster budget movie like this is going to get made.... kind of in the proud tradition of big budget Pacific war movies like Midway <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When it finally gets to the battle scenes (I figure that the attack will only be secondary, or even tertiary to the plot!) I was dismayed that they refused to use CGI for 100% of the battle scenes. The IJN Carrier shown was just an Essex class in a bad disguise, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was plenty of live filming done with some p-40's and dressed up trainers taking the place of Vals, Kate's and Zeroes. and some big explosions. Also, with the film nearly 6 months out, I'd imagine that a full print hasn't been finished, so a portion of the CGI work hasn't been done yet. The planes flying past the washlines shot was one of the test shots done somewhere to see if the real planes and the CGI planes were distinguishable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am pretty sure they used some modern Burke class frigates portraying ships being hit, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> THey used the Missouri, also, supposedly with a couple of vintage ships in fromt of it to disguise it. We'll see what it all looks like when put together. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As someone mentioned in an earlier rant, Disney didn't want to do a movie where America loses at the end. I realized how they would get this done by noticing that there were a few shots of B-25's in the preview. The only time that B-25's were used before mid-1942 was during the Dolittle Raid. How they are going to end the film, is, seeing the B-25's fly over Tokyo and drop bombs on old Tojo and flying off into the sunset. Rant mode off<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Supposedly, the bombing at Pearl is supposed to be an act 2 event. Act 3 will be Doolittle's raid, so it shouldn't have a tacked on feel. Found more info and some nice pics at http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/pearlharbor.html [This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 12-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Woooo-wee! After seeing the title of this thread, I was afraid somebody was gonna give away how WW2 ends! Don't spoil it for me now guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saru3000 Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Woooo-wee! After seeing the title of this thread, I was afraid somebody was gonna give away how WW2 ends! Don't spoil it for me now guys!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree,von lucke.I made it through the American educational system without learning the ending and I don't want it spoiled now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Arabian Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 I personally think the american moviegoing public is sold short a lot of the time. I mean, eyah, if you want to spend 200 mil on a movie, you're going to have to water it down to such pablum that its useless. But when movies like Glory and Gettysburg did well, it proves theres a market if you're willing to do without Mr. Afflec and his 15 mil price tag. Basically I plan to come in late to this one - My understanding is that act one is the love story, and the rest is CG battles of pearl harbor and Doolittle raid (previous poster was correct - and the CG does look awful good). Then I'll come home and watch Tora Tora Tora to get the bad taste out of my mouth. One thing though - it looked like they had a sequence in the tralier with Japanese pilots doing the kamikaze preps - anyone else see that? Kamikaze runs didn't start til 44... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Those planes bombing Pearl Harbour weren't British, were they? ------------------ Is "patheti-sad" a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Canuck Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 I think there should be a remake of the Longest Day... And nothing with a Hollywood sub-plot with romance s***. I want to see a good war movie be made nowadays! I want to see D-Day, from the point of view of all the nationalities, not JUST American, or JUST German and so on. True, it would be more of a Documentary, but I think that that is what the world needs today. To have its eyes opened to the brutalities of war suffered by all who lived it. Not just Pvt Ryan or Capt. Miller(No offence to SPR, I personally love that movie myself) But what about Haupt. Schmidt, or Mme. Telouse, or Major Coxwell with the Brits. A pure Docu-Drama of WW2! The Movie itself would be divided up into four parts. Part 1(20Mins), we would have a half hour or so archival footage of the preparations that went into D-Day, the Leaders(Ike, Monty, Rommel)It would serve as a quick introduction to those who have no idea what D-Day is. Part 2(30 Mins),D-Day-1 We would focus on June 5th, the final preparations, the men who will be fighting tomorrow and their anxieties, a brief look at Southern England and how drastically it had been changed. Part 3(90 Mins) D-Day There would be focuses on every beach, not only the attackers, but the defenders too (Who would also be speaking German, not English) And pay attention to the french people and to the Marquis. Part 4(40 Mins) D-Day-to-VE Day and include events(briefly) Falaise Gap, Paris, opening of Antwerp, M-G, the Bulge, Fall of Berlin. I know that's a lot to fit into 40 mins, but it would be very brief, it would serve as a conclusion to the movie. This film would need the support of all the Gov't Countries involved, it would probably be filmed it hundreds of different locations across Europe and North America, have one of the largest budgets movie making history. This is certainly do-able in my mind. All we need is to win about 300 Million dollars(US) and present this idea to Stephen Spielberg! This movie would serve as a living tribute to all of those that served in one of the greatest battles ever fought on earth, no matter of what country, age, creed. Thanks, I really needed to get that idea out! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Author Share Posted December 30, 2000 Saving Private Ryan, and Thin Red Line were good movies, showing that a war movie doesn't have to fall in the Hollywood trap in order to be successful. Sure, there were problems with both (innacuracies and very extreme characters in SPR, and a long and confusing plot in TRL) but they managed to avoid (in the most part) the simplicity of the 'good vs. evil', 'david vs. goliath" of mainstream movies. The CGI, when used, looked great in the 'Pearl Harbor' previews. The use of real naval vessels was probably more expensive, and looked a heck of a lot worse than if the would have made computer generated images of REAL vessels. Unfortunately, the movie looks like it was made by people who have no real interest in the era, other than they feel they can make a lot of money off an event that everyone knows a little about. I think that the Doolittle Raid was only included in the plot so that the defeat at Pearl Harbour will not be the last thing on the viewer's memory when they leave the theatre. Like a true Hollywood movie, the good guys get a thrashing, but always win at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Relax, guys. The movie isn't titled "Pearl Harbor: The Documentary". It's only a movie, it can't hurt you. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlop Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 I still can't wait to see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: Those planes bombing Pearl Harbour weren't British, were they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canadian, I think... Can't trust them with their flappy heads! I say BLAME CANADA! (with apologies to South Park) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Author Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Relax, guys. The movie isn't titled "Pearl Harbor: The Documentary". It's only a movie, it can't hurt you. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately, many people take movies based on a historical event on face value. Sure, they are pretty sure that the romance thing didn't happen, but, they probably see the battle, political events and so on as 100% the truth. They are benefitting from choosing a historic event as their focus for the movie, they at least should be as true to it as possible. If not, then why couldn't they have just created some sort of fictional scenario to base around the romance?? Compassion, if it were the Canadians bombing Pearl Harbour, then wouldn't the Baldwin bothers be starring in the movie?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts