Masters of the Air “Review” …

[TAdan]

I watched both episodes twice. Overall I enjoyed it. The CGI wasn't enough to deter me from appreciating the rest of it. I think a general audience won't give a second thought to the CGI.

I was very impressed by the aircraft interiors and thought the exteriors of the 1:1 replicas looked great.

Yes I would have loved to see have seen real aircraft used but it is what it is so... Either way I am looking forward to the rest of the series and happy that it is another way to introduce this story to the public.

[Xrayist]

Haven't seen it yet, am going to be like one of the other posters, wait until I can watch the complete series without waiting a week for the next one. The one question I have, and not trying to start an argument, but is there any movie ever made that pleases the people who pick apart movies/series like Masters of the Air? As others have said, some people pick apart every little detail. Even if they managed to get every flyable B-17 gathered to film this series, wouldn't it be very un-realistic since there are no B-17's flying other than the G model? Yes, the Movie Memphis Bell and Ye Olde Pub are made to look like an F model, but they are in fact G models. I remember when the new Midway movie (in 2019) came out and a lot of people on different forums complained about the inaccuracy of the planes used, the bad CGI, and many other things in the movie. Some said the 1976 version of the movie was much more accurate. Not sure how, since I don't recall any "angle" deck carriers being around during WW II. I honestly believe that some are out there that the only joy they have in life is to tear down, criticize or make fun of other people's work. That is fine, your right, etc., but please tell us HOW you would have done it better. Actually, why don't you do it better? You know, make your own movie and make sure that it is 100% accurate and there is nothing that can be pointed out that is wrong. Thus endeth my rant.....

[Mark Allen M]

Again! the only knock IMHO is that the CGI is decent in certain scenes and in others it's the usual overkill we've seen in films relying heavily on CGI. To me that's the indication that the producers interests are to entertain the masses, more so than to portray history to it's highest level of authenticity with such a great tool as CGI. That's my only beef and certainly not to be taken as a complete disappointment of the series. I also think the bar was set quite high to achieve the level of success in authenticity that BOB had (if you could somewhat forgive the C-47 CGI scenes).

Time will tell as the series continues.

[Dave Hadfield]

The CGI sucks. The B-17s fly like silly cartoons. Unrealistic.
It's like the CGI people who were hired to make the film think they're doing a Marvel superhero drama.
Very bad to watch for any warbird pilot.
Top Gun II had a vastly better mix -- because an actual pilot had a whip to crack.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Very bad to watch for any warbird pilot.

I'm enjoying it...

Very neat to see the portrayal of veterans I was honored to meet in my youth. Flying scenes don't bother me, as I know it's CGI and take it for what it is. I'm incredibly impressed with the accuracy of the interior scenes, uniforms, vehicles, etc. Look past the funky B-17 go-around and Elvis' weird voice and it's entertaining and should help to peak the interest of those who would not have otherwise been interested.

[Baldeagle]

For what it's worth it's getting 83 percent from the critics on Rotten Tomatoes, but only 68 percent from viewers, which still isn't bad.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/maste ... he_air/s01


-

[p51]

I couple scenes defy the physics of landing a B17, like the one that first lands at Thrope Abbots on all three wheels at the same time (which can be done but its a bad idea) and the one that smacks that clif without breaking in half. But those are the exception and not the rule. The B17s on the ground and the interior aiprlane sets are very well done.
Rob Lihani handled the uniforms and flight gear and he did a great job on that. Way better than any other WW2 production in recent years.
I agree the "character" development isn't quite there, an issue most reviewers have also noted.
Still, I'm liking this because in the end, no film is going to be 100% perfect...

[p51]

Episode 3 was especially brutal. No spoilers but there's a scene in there that'll really tear at your soul, something that must have happened plenty of times and would have traumatized vets in that situation for the rest of their lives.
You'll know what I mean when you watch it.

[martin_sam_2000]

Episode 3 was especially brutal. No spoilers but there's a scene in there that'll really tear at your soul, something that must have happened plenty of times and would have traumatized vets in that situation for the rest of their lives.
You'll know what I mean when you watch it.

I am pretty sure I know the scene. I was taking a bite of food when it happened and had to go back a second time to make sure what I thought happened actually did.

I found, for the most part, the CGI is decent, but hit and miss. The takeoffs and landings are Janky AF, but the mass formations look great, and the combat scenes feel real. The issue with aircraft is to make it realistic, makes it look boring. Things happen much slower in real life than many people understand, and this show is primarily interested in entertainment. the interior of the aircraft, costumes and crew actions are top notch and generally add to the realism factor of the show.

I would give it 7.5/10 overall. My recommendation is don't take what you read online with you. Watch it once for entertainment, then a second time to pick it apart.

Sean

[TAdan]

I thought episode 3 was the best one yet and certainly made up for the slow periods in the first two episodes. Lots of aerial action that had me on the edge of my seat. I thought they did a good job trying to convey the brutality of it all.

[dougdrivr]

Question for you B-17 experts. What is that graph/chart on the armored headrests behind the pilots ? I've never seen that before. Looks like some kind of performance or weight and balance decal ?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

One thing that bothered me, because it's so simple yet so stupid, is that in episode one or two--can't remember which--there's a scene of a B-17 crashing, in the distance, and what the viewer sees is a long, thin trail of smoke, angling straight down from several thousand feet and ending in a distant fireball. Soon thereafter, two pilots are discussing the incident and one asks the other what happened.

"Turned base to final too steeply, stalled and spun."

Don't they have any technical advisors?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

One thing that bothered me, because it's so simple yet so stupid, is that in episode one or two--can't remember which--there's a scene of a B-17 crashing, in the distance, and what the viewer sees is a long, thin trail of smoke, angling straight down from several thousand feet and ending in a distant fireball. Soon thereafter, two pilots are discussing the incident and one asks the other what happened.

"Turned base to final too steeply, stalled and spun."

Don't they have any technical advisors?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

One thing that bothered me, because it's so simple yet so stupid, is that in episode one or two--can't remember which--there's a scene of a B-17 crashing, in the distance, and what the viewer sees is a long, thin trail of smoke, angling straight down from several thousand feet and ending in a distant fireball. Soon thereafter, two pilots are discussing the incident and one asks the other what happened.

"Turned base to final too steeply, stalled and spun."

Don't they have any technical advisors?

[Randy Haskin]

Question for you B-17 experts. What is that graph/chart on the armored headrests behind the pilots ? I've never seen that before. Looks like some kind of performance or weight and balance decal ?

Last edited by Randy Haskin on Tue Feb 06, 2024 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.