Aviation myths that will not die (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

There are plenty of war movies with good actors/acting and decent stories, some based on real events. It would be quite a long list.
'The Cruel Sea', 'Carve Her Name With Pride', 'Ice Cold In Alex', 'The Admiral', 'Das Boot', 'Au Revoir Les Enfants', then, more fanciful, 'Zulu', 'Bridge On The River Kwai, 'Stalingrad' (Bondarchuk's 2013 version), even 'The Great Escape' (to include one American film among the European classics, there are many more very good US war films)....the list goes on, which makes you wonder why anyone would bother with a pile of manure like U-571.
Great acting, maybe not such a nice story, 'Der Untergang'.
Cheers
Steve
 
Personally, I was entertained and I still wonder about the prop submarine they used. It looked prtty good for a Hollywood prop. I thought it also conveyed the cramped quarters of a real submarine a LOT better than 1940s - 1970s movies did. They had enough room in "Voyage to the Bottom of eth Sea" to set up a retail store in the control room, plus wide, long hallways! And anybody could enter and destroy the "circuitry room!"

I guess it depends on whether or not you wanted to see a war movie or a flick depicting history. I remind you that the U.S.A. DID capture U-505, with an enigma machine and codes, but it was in 1944. I figured it was a sort of depiction of what they thought that mission might have been like without regard to timeframe, complete with Hollywood "updating" of the social thinking. If they ever shoot a movie with the actors portraying real WWII language and real WWII attitudes, someome would obviously "not get it" and some would come away offended.

No use risking all the money for that, huh? Not when you can throw in modern attitudes. The part I didn't enjoy was the crew wanting to ignore the new Captain. That didn't happen back then unless there was outright mutiny. It's much more of a modern attitude, and not much tolerated in any Navy. It shows up now and then during a rebellion in some country, like Russia back in the 1860s.
 
I watched We Dive at Dawn - Wikipedia over the xmas holiday and its not a bad film at all especially when you think it was filmed in the middle of a war. A friend who served in Oberon class submarines during the 70s and 80s says though the plot is a bit Hollywood the sequences aboard the boat are very realistic, especially the cramped nature and the overall grubbiness of a working boat.
 
I think the frustration with U-571 is that it continues a theme of apple pie-ing history. America was the arsenal of democracy and undoubtedly played the major role in winning WWII during the period 1943-45. However, we should not ignore the contributions of the other nations that were pivotal in the success. To ignore them does a disservice to the memory of those who sacrificed and misinforms later generations on those sacrifices. To pick just one example, more British and Commonwealth soldiers went ashore on D-Day than did American soldiers and yet many believe that America liberated Europe almost single-handedly.

None of the above is meant to offend anyone, nor am I trying to start an argument. It's just frustrating when contributions from other nations get airbrushed out of the narrative.

For the record, one of my all-time favourite flicks is Twelve O'clock High. Simply marvelous...including all the contemporary footage of 303rd BG B-17s. Having lived close to RAF Molesworth, I have a soft spot for that unit.
 
In regards to the movie U-571 not being that accurate and possibly offensive, I just wish to state for the record that Hans Solo only did the Kessel Run in 15 parsecs! I still hold the 12 parsec record and I am highly offended that the Star Wars franchise is taking credit away from me and giving it to that broken down freighter pilot with a walking rug for a co-pilot!
 

Yeah, fundamental Hollywood error there too. A parsec is a unit of DISTANCE not TIME, (1 parsec = 3.086 × 10 to the13 Km)
It's like saying I drove from Oxford to London in 50 miles If you could do it in fewer miles that really would be something.
For some reason I'm not surprised by yet another type of inaccuracy in a Hollywood movie, and something that could so easily have been checked and avoided.
Cheers
Steve
 
Actually it was intended as a measure of distance...

The Kessel Run was a hyperspace route[1] used by smugglers and unscrupulous freightercaptains to move spice from the spice mines of Kessel at the behest of the Pyke Syndicate, who relied on the foolhardy Kessel Runs to deliver the illicit substance to their customers.[2]. The route involves several extreme changes in velocity in order to jump to, and drop out of, light speed with the minimum time spent out of hyperspace while making drops, pick ups or tight turns. It was therefore the source of much bragging between smugglers. The time to perform the run proved too difficult to arbitrate (due to the highly relativistic distances involved) but a fierce competition developed nonetheless, for the pilot and ship able to make the run while covering the shortest overall distance demonstrating the most adept maneuverability and pilotage.[source?]Han Solo, captain of the Millennium Falcon, made the infamous run in less than 12 parsecs,[3] breaking a long-held record.[1]
 
"It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood, in fact Americans in general, don't get this. It's why they make films like this in the first place."



Cheers

Steve[/QUOTE]

Hollywood film makers make movies to make money. Their target audience is the American ticket purchaser. Had they made a movie about the British capture of a German U-boat and Enigma machine, they likely wouldn't break even. Bias? Yes. Do Brits have a Bias? Most certainly (I see it right here). Do I want to see movies/documentaries about British WWII exploits? Most certainly. An awesome movie could be made about the British SOE's Operation Postmaster. Would American audiences pay money to see it? Maybe. Change the story around, have American OSS performing the spectacular mission, or a multinational band of misfits, and viola! Nobody's trying to deny British exceptionalism, they're trying to make as much money as possible.
 
That's some "Turbo Nerd" knowledge right there! Thanks for clarifying
 
The only time I truly get upset is when a documentary is inaccurate. Movies are escapism pure and simple and are formulaic and designed only to satisfy their target audience and generate revenue. And as Fighterguy points out the formula used varies often on the country the movie's target audience resides in. Having spent time in Japan and having seen many movies there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that Japan did not lose WW2, it was actually won by Godzilla and Mothra and the Japanese and Americans banded together to overcome this unfortunate plague of monsters.
Fighterguy said:
That's some "Turbo Nerd" knowledge right there! Thanks for clarifying
Click to expand...
Hey its from the Wookiepedia no more authoritative source exists in the entire empire!
 
The further we get away from the events the less they are connected to exactly what happened. Some movies tried their best to be a historical record. The Battle of Britain may have been a bit "hammed up" but it was a pretty fair representation of what happened. OK the spitfires werent all MKIs and the 109s were Bouchons but as a portrayal it is actually better than some of the tosh I have seen on TV that were supposed to be educating me.

I read a lot of books about Nelson and his battles and Wellington in Spain and Waterloo. I have seen movies of the era and they are nothing like the reality. Nelson was walking down some steps during a battle and the officer in front had his head taken off by a cannon ball. To show what really happened would be way beyond X rated gore, and he was the victorious admiral.
 
Fighterguy said:
"It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood, in fact Americans in general, don't get this. It's why they make films like this in the first place."



Cheers

Steve
Click to expand...

Hollywood film makers make movies to make money. Their target audience is the American ticket purchaser. Had they made a movie about the British capture of a German U-boat and Enigma machine, they likely wouldn't break even. Bias? Yes. Do Brits have a Bias? Most certainly (I see it right here). Do I want to see movies/documentaries about British WWII exploits? Most certainly. An awesome movie could be made about the British SOE's Operation Postmaster. Would American audiences pay money to see it? Maybe. Change the story around, have American OSS performing the spectacular mission, or a multinational band of misfits, and viola! Nobody's trying to deny British exceptionalism, they're trying to make as much money as possible.[/QUOTE]


Marketing is why the Dr Strange movie had Tilda Swinton portraying a Tibetan monk. And didn't mention that Doc Strange got his power from Tibet: China doesn't like people mentioning that Tibet was independent until overrun by the PLA.

The trouble with something like U-571 isn't that the movie gets facts wrong but that people who try to get them right, in the newspapers, on the radio, or on TV or (God help us all) the Internet get shouted down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
6
Views
589
pb43
P
N
OS2U-3 Kingfisher that rescued Rickenbacker - need the Bureau Number
Replies
2
Views
662
NNAM
N
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
9K
RCAFson
R
A query I sent to my Midwest aviation gang - WWII bomber growth
Replies
0
Views
604
fannum
the invention of the turbojet. A letter that changed history
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register