New Flying Tigers Movie

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:10 am

Glen wrote:

Obergrafeter wrote:

Don't care about the model of airplanes as long as there P-40s, but please ...please....please not Tom Cruise as "Tex Hill"! About two feet different in height, I will personally bring Masey to Hollywood and put an end to that crap if that is who he wants to play.

Hey why not try to get Tommy Lee Jones to play the old man cant think of anybody better that would be suited for that role. kinda looks like him too :wink:

your absolutely right on the jones / chennault comparison, both in personality & looks!!!

Dennis7423 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:06 am

Fortunately, not all CGI aircraft I have seen have been terrible. Take this guy's work for instance... possibly seen her before... gives me hope for the future of CGI aircraft. The thing that always got me is that CGI aircraft never seem to "move" quite right. They look nice, have great detail, but when it comes to maneuvering, they just don't move like a real plane does. This guy seems to get the movements much closer than any other work i've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEuOw5yrLO4

-Dennis S.
Arvada, CO

6trn4brn · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:03 am

Gotta agree with the notion that anything WWII aviation related cannot be a bad thing. All of the cheesy stories aside, how many young people may have had a spark of interest generated by movies such as Pearl Harbor or WWI interest in Flyboys? Yes, huge amounts of cheese for us old-timers and tons of errors made by the producers/directors, but the point of getting the younger generation interested in our passion cannot be a bad thing at all!

Extend that to the airshows where planes such as The MOVIE Memphis Belle appears and you have a wonderful combination of things to help kids get that spark ignited.

The generation of kids growing up today can use all of the positive role models they can get! And if the parents can spend an hour or two in a movie theater being mildly entertained, it is all good :wink:

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:15 am

It will give us a chance to get the wrong Model accuratly painted CAF P-40 in front of a new audience. Hope it don't get ruined by a decal..............

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:26 am

Dennis7423 wrote:

Fortunately, not all CGI aircraft I have seen have been terrible. Take this guy's work for instance... possibly seen her before... gives me hope for the future of CGI aircraft. The thing that always got me is that CGI aircraft never seem to "move" quite right. They look nice, have great detail, but when it comes to maneuvering, they just don't move like a real plane does. This guy seems to get the movements much closer than any other work i've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEuOw5yrLO4

-Dennis S.
Arvada, CO

That was pretty good there is hope for CGI. I think one of the things the CGI crowd don't really understand about aircraft is how much they flex. It can be very subtle in a denser smaller aircraft like a WW2 warbird or very pronounced as in the B-52 or modern airliners but it happens all the time. Another thing I don't think they understand are the interplay between thrust and lift vectors another subtle thing in a smaller aircraft. It seems like this guy is on the right track.

RickH · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:03 am

I've seen that clip before. I was trying tp figure out that Mossie was photographed ! That one is the most real CGI that I've seen.

Hellcat · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:58 pm

I don't know about you guys, but sinse I live in Santa Barbara and LA, I'm exposed to too much Hollywood, I'm actually working on a few celebs homes so I know a bit about kooks ... I'm one of em .... but I'm also a film critic and I get heated when I see a film about WW2 aviation that is so "out there" I can't stand it ... especially CGI stuff. WHY! WHY! WHY! did pearl harbor have to be so cheezy? ... I'm actually a friend of Michael Bay, but I have never, ever asked him why he didn't do a better job of CGI in PH.
I would assume he would say .... BOXOFFICE BABY!!!!

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:32 pm

We spent a week on the "boat" with the Japanese aircraft and I bet there was not 10 seconds used in the film (PH)

dors · **Posted:** Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:33 pm

Dennis, that youtube clip is incredible and I could definitely handle a movie with that in it. That PH movie (and most aviation movies for that matter make me sick. PH would have you believe that a P-40 can pull about 18 G's at 500mph.

DarenC1 · **Joined:** Sun May 07, 2006 8:10 am **Posts:** 235

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Use real planes but you can't get the right ones you want, so get heckled for it. Use all-CGI, and get heckled for that, too.

Personally, like others have said, I wouldn't mind one darn bit whether a P-40 isn't the correct variant as used by the AVG. What matters most is that someone has helped keep the plane in the air a little longer by putting some money in the owner's pockets....

Django · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:51 am

Can later models be converted to a B or a C?

I agree that anything that keeps what these folks did alive in the minds of young people, can't be all bad.

The P-40 flying sequences in PH were ridiculous. Hellcat, you SHOULD ask him if you are friends.

Mudge · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:56 pm

I hope that if the rumor is true about a Flying Tigers movie with Tom Cruise, it will be far better than the "BOMB" (pun intended) Valkyrie. AARRGGHH.

Mudge the critic :wink:

Django · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:20 pm

How is Valkarie a bomb? It's not even released yet? :roll:

old iron · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:20 pm

Hello,

A little artistic license is fine, if at the get the types right. What really bothers me is when they get to manuvers and the war wrong. In "Pearl Harber" the heros went through a planning and communications impossibilities to shoot down a Zero -- stupid, stupid, stupid. In "Flyboys" (finally, a WWI air movie) all the enemy aircraft were red Fokker triplanes. In that old TV show about Pappy Boyington, they would repeat again and again the combat maneuver where the one plane would do a right roll while the other would roll to the left - great video but not what a plane would do while chasing another in combat, and does anyone remember the really stupid plots? They are painful to watch.

In 1941 (OK, a sort of commedy) the hero ultimately gets captured by a Japanese submarine, for laughs. Does anyone in teh audience know what would have immediately to such a captured pilot?

If they can get the history right I can forebear a "N" model for a "C".

Kevin

Mudge · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:36 pm

Django wrote:

How is Valkarie a bomb? It's not even released yet? :roll:

Saw it. My little brother, being a member of Screen Actors Guild for 40 years, got an invite to a screening. I went with him.
Sorry, but IMHO, it's only about 30% accurate. The names are the same. The fact that the bomb didn't kill Hitler is correct but little else. There's too much "Hollywood" literary license in it for me.
Some of youse troops are picky about a particular a/c being a "B" or "C" or "D" model. Others are obsessed with "tail/Bu" numbers.
I have the same "pickiness" about history.
Why not...I feel like I was there for a lot of it. :hide:

Mudge the historical

Warbird Information Exchange

New Flying Tigers Movie

Who is online