Movies and tv show screw-up

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-02 05:17pm

Stravo wrote:Does anyone foresee a time in the future when some WWII militray equipment might be CGI'd for real accuracy (particualrly planes I assume) As the technology improves we might see CGI hordes of T-34's charging through a snowy tundra at emplaced German positions. Or am I just dreaming? I can see some studio exec going "A tank's a tank, who's going to know the difference?"

Why would we need to CGI T-34's? The things are still in active service with some armies, and available to moviemakers to the point that they're used as stand-ins for thing like WW2 German models.

As for making CGI equipment as such, its already been done but it would take a massive investment to make any form of large scale ground battle using the technology.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-02 05:21pm

As for making CGI equipment as such, its already been done but it would take a massive investment to make any form of large scale ground battle using the technology.

True, but given things like AotC and TTT it's not impossible. Especially since CGI is getter more and more common.

Though it probably won't be replacing actual vehicles just yet.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-09-02 08:38pm

Every single US tv show: nearly everything once they set foot in any foreign airport. McGuyver & JAG are the most known offenders to me.

Imagine me making a detective story in the 1990's, and some guy travels to Miami and has to find the president of the US while dodging indian arrows. It's THAT bad.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-09-02 09:00pm

Pensacola: Wings of Gold tv series is very bad in using military footage. Where else can one plane and locations can change into several different planes in one minute.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-03 10:00am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Well when they filmed The Battle of Britain the Spanish didn't exactly have a shortage of them, 47 being used for the inspections scenes and for a few shots of large German formations.

When we're at it - I'd like to inform that in Spain, the Messerschmitt Bf109 was still in mass production in Spain under the name Hispano Ha1112-M1L until 1959!!

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-03 10:12am

3rd Impact wrote:Pearl Harbor: Trying to pass of Spruance-class destroyers as WW 2-era ships indicates a low respect for the audience's historical knowledge. That really annoyed me.

Actually, those were old 60s Knox-class frigates —I know those ships all too well. Still inexcusable and one of the many things that made that fucking movie a crime.

BTW, anybody notice the Missouri in the background of one scene in the harbour?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-03 11:07am

One thing that may be deemed excuseable is the portrayal of contemporay Soviet hardware in Western films during the cold war. Put yourself in 1980's. where the hell do you get a MiG 31 or a T-80/90 for use in your film? Or an current model Hind? You don't. It's not like you could just call the Soviet embassy and say "Hey, can we borrow a squadron of those new Foxbats? We're making a movie where the heroic American pilot shoots down MiG's by the dozen and...hello?.....hello?"

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-09-03 03:07pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:One thing that may be deemed excuseable is the portrayal of contemporay Soviet hardware in Western films during the cold war. Put yourself in 1980's. where the hell do you get a MiG 31 or a T-80/90 for use in your film? Or an current model Hind? You don't. It's not like you could just call the Soviet embassy and say "Hey, can we borrow a squadron of those new Foxbats? We're making a movie where the heroic American pilot shoots down MiG's by the dozen and...hello?.....hello?"

Up to a point, yes. The Hind mockups especially usually deserve extra points for effort if not accuracy, and american aircraft are propably the easiest for US movie crews to get their hands on.
THe F-5 Migs in TopGun were not so bad- few non-aircaft nuts will recognize that one, and the nuts will be howling about the Tomcats changing load-out in mid-flight anyway.
But trying to pass Phantoms off as Migs? That just about the most widely recognized fighter on the bloody planet!! Don't tell me the Israelis didn't have anything else, because they sure as hell did in Part One! How bout using them Kfirs again?
Actual MiGs were certainly not an option but how about something less recognizable? IIRC they used Saab Draakens in several Airwolf episodes as well as that atrocious Nick Cage Apache movie the name of which escapes me ATM.
Or how about models? Worked for Firefox, and it's not like we're talking shoestring budget made-for-TV movies here.

And on a completely unrelated note, can anybody tell me what those aircraft were they used in 'Hot Shots'? I think they're Folland Gnats but I somehow never get around to taping that movie and checking...

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-09-03 03:28pm

Stravo wrote:Does anyone foresee a time in the future when some WWII militray equipment might be CGI'd for real accuracy (particualrly planes I assume) As the technology improves we might see CGI hordes of T-34's charging through a snowy tundra at emplaced German positions. Or am I just dreaming? I can see some studio exec going "A tank's a tank, who's going to know the difference?"

They did that in the Mel Gibson movie "We Were Soldiers". All the fixed wing aircraft were CGI with the exception of one plane, I don't remember what it was I do remember it was the only propeller plane in the movie though. Pretty much the F-4's and stuff like that were CG.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-03 03:29pm

Probably the spotter/foward air controllers aircraft.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-03 03:57pm

Batman wrote: Actual MiGs were certainly not an option but how about something less recognizable? IIRC they used Saab Draakens in several Airwolf episodes as well as that atrocious Nick Cage Apache movie the name of which escapes me ATM.

Firebirds, that movie also used an A-6 little bird as the fictional Scorpion attack helicopter. The movie also would have you believe that 70mm unguided rockets are used routinely as air-to-air weaponry by helicopters. While they did see use in that role on fixed wing aircraft, in the 1950's, they sure as fuck dont do so now.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-03 04:00pm

Patrick Degan wrote: Actually, those were old 60s Knox-class frigates —I know those ships all too well. Still inexcusable and one of the many things that made that fucking movie a crime.

No the group of ships which are most famous among the errors for being shown blowing up several times are Spruance's. A single Knox is visible close up at one point however, a Perry, and Canadian Halifax can also be seen at other times and supposedly a Burke is briefly visible.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-09-03 04:08pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Firebirds, that movie also used an A-6 little bird as the fictional Scorpion attack helicopter. The movie also would have you believe that 70mm unguided rockets are used routinely as air-to-air weaponry by helicopters. While they did see use in that role on fixed wing aircraft, in the 1950's, they sure as fuck dont do so now.

That would be the AH-6 (yes, I'm nitpicky today).I'll take your word for it although it looked like a bog-standard Defender to me.
On second thought, that was a stupid thing to say because I don't know there's actually any difference.
And as for the quality of the movie, I refer you to the opening air battle.
The Scorpion first kills the Huey, then one Cobra, and then either manages to run away from the second one or scares IT into running away (can't remember).
Heaven forbid the Cobras maneuver to take it down or (gasp)traverse the gun turret and take the sucker down while its flying beside them maybe a hundred yards away...

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-09-03 09:12pm

Batman wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Firebirds, that movie also used an A-6 little bird as the fictional Scorpion attack helicopter. The movie also would have you believe that 70mm unguided rockets are used routinely as air-to-air weaponry by helicopters. While they did see use in that role on fixed wing aircraft, in the 1950's, they sure as fuck dont do so now.
That would be the AH-6 (yes, I'm nitpicky today).I'll take your word for it although it looked like a bog-standard Defender to me.
On second thought, that was a stupid thing to say because I don't know there's actually any difference.
And as for the quality of the movie, I refer you to the opening air battle.
The Scorpion first kills the Huey, then one Cobra, and then either manages to run away from the second one or scares IT into running away (can't remember).
Heaven forbid the Cobras maneuver to take it down or (gasp)traverse the gun turret and take the sucker down while its flying beside them maybe a hundred yards away...

I really hate that movie. Partially because it is so bad and partially because it was filmed around here. They used the Junior College I went to as the one of their command buildings.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-04 04:31am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: Actually, those were old 60s Knox-class frigates —I know those ships all too well. Still inexcusable and one of the many things that made that fucking movie a crime.
No the group of ships which are most famous among the errors for being shown blowing up several times are Spruance's. A single Knox is visible close up at one point however, a Perry, and Canadian Halifax can also be seen at other times and supposedly a Burke is briefly visible.

I don't think so, but then again, I'm not going to subject myself to another sit-through of this thoroughly dopey movie just to confirm it one way or the other. Bad enough they had stock-footage of a modern carrier battle-group —led by a Nimitz-class vessel— representing Nagumo's First Carrier Strike Force. Makes it seem as if The Final Countdown had Stephen Ambrose as historical adviser by comparison. I loathe Bruckheimer and Bey.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-09-04 09:11am

"Saving Private Ryan"

The Tiger tank has its drive spocket on the back instead of the front. The number of idler wheels and their layout is incorrect also. They obviously built a tiger-like frame on another tank body.

EDIT: its not a plane, but I'm sure people like tanks just as much as they do planes

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-09-04 09:16am

Death from the Sea wrote: I don't remember what it was I do remember it was the only propeller plane in the movie though.

A-1 Skyraider... its a ground attack plane, similar in role to the A-10 now. Its known to be the only prop plane to have shot down a jet in combat.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-04 09:30am

Zoink wrote:
Death from the Sea wrote: I don't remember what it was I do remember it was the only propeller plane in the movie though.
A-1 Skyraider... its a ground attack plane, similar in role to the A-10 now. Its known to be the only prop plane to have shot down a jet in combat.

Really?? I'm sure there were some Me262s which were shot down by Allied fighters during WW2.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-04 09:37am

In the otherwise superb Cross of Iron (where real T-35/85s are used) stock footage of strafing Corsairs is used as stand-ins for (I presume) Il-2 Sturmoviks.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-04 09:39am

Zoink wrote:
A-1 Skyraider... its a ground attack plane, similar in role to the A-10 now. Its known to be the only prop plane to have shot down a jet in combat.

Dude: Me-262s were routinely shot down by prop planes in WW2.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-09-04 09:54am

Vympel wrote: Dude: Me-262s were routinely shot down by prop planes in WW2.

I was just repeating what I had read on the A-1 Skyraider model info sheet. Maybe they had the word "modern" *shrug*.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-09-04 10:03am

Non-warplane or tank nitpicking.

What i hate in action movie the chase scene,everyone of them has a car flying through the box of a truck,so whats annoying me is why are they so obsessed in doing these scenes,its a car dammit not an airplane.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-04 10:14am

you know what really pisses me off? when a car or a truck in a movie crashes and fucking explodes like it's carrying 50 lb wad of semtex floating in a vat of gasoline. I have seen many an accident in real life and not once has accident scene looked like Dresden circa 1944.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-04 10:58am

Vympel wrote:In the otherwise superb Cross of Iron (where real T-35/85s are used) stock footage of strafing Corsairs is used as stand-ins for (I presume) Il-2 Sturmoviks.

That's not half as bad as one obscure WW2 film —can't remember the title— that actually tried to pass off P-51D Mustangs as Luftwaffle planes with black paintjobs and Iron Cross markings. An issue of Air Classics magazine had a still frame from that movie in an article about warbirds on the silver screen.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-04 10:58am

Col. Crackpot wrote:you know what really pisses me off? when a car or a truck in a movie crashes and fucking explodes like it's carrying 50 lb wad of semtex floating in a vat of gasoline. I have seen many an accident in real life and not once has accident scene looked like Dresden circa 1944.

Dont forget flipping and flying through the air after running over a small item. Ive seen one car flip in an accident and that was because it hit an embankement with a 30-40 degree slope.