Red Tails trailer

[rayrey10]

Trailer looks good. Hope this movie doesn't disappoint!


http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810095581/video

[X_eidos2]

Three weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting with a B-24 pilot who flew 50 combat missions in B-24's in Italy during WW2. He was wearing a ballcap that honored the Tuskegee airmen. He asked me if I knew who they were. I said that I did. He said they flew top cover for him during some of his missions, and 67 years later he still has the highest regard for them and what they did.

I just watched the trailer for Red Tails and I must admit I'm really disappointed. LucasArts has some of the finest CG animators in the business, yet they continue to make the same mistakes when it comes to animating flying sequences. The same outfit did the cg for Pearl Harbor. They spent a fortune flying their texture artists to the movie location, hauling a P-40 up with a crane so they could get photos of it, and get a texture map that was an exact match down to the rivets for their cg models of the planes being flown in the movie. Still they had the planes flying like spaceships from Star Wars.

My complaint is that with just a little bit of effort they could have created a film that was accurate historically as well as entertaining. Since all the planes were cg, why not make them B-24's instead of B-17's. When making the movie about Col. Fister's hairiest mission, I found several photos of bombers flying in formation and none of them showed the bombers flying packed together like they are in the clips shown in the trailer. In the clips, the fighters still fly like space ships. Which is a shame, since it's now possible to take the movement data captured by FSRecorder, and using off-the-shelf software, convert the data into something that can be used by 3d modeling programs other than FS.

What a missed opportunity.

[Wittpilot]

Yeah... CG is that, CG... It's not real, and frankly among us in the "know", will probably never be satisfied w/ a CG aircraft. That being said, I think from waht I saw in the trailer, it could be worse. I thought the B-17's looked good, and it seems nobody every gets those completely looking right...

Im looking forward to it & hope it does extremely well which, hopefully, will lead to more aviation themed films.

-witt

[robert41]

I never did care for CG aircraft in movies. I would rather see real video, either filmed during the war, or today of an aircraft made to look like a WW2 aircraft. Another thing I hate to see, is overdone special effects. A simple car crash, they try to make it look like a nuclear explosion.

[Pips]

Good CG or not, I'm really happy to see a movie about the 332nd FG. A superb oufit. :) I just hope that Hollywood doesn't sink the movie into an unbearable flag waving mush story.

[Lateral-G]

I just hope that Hollywood doesn't sink the movie into an unbearable flag waving mush story.

They will..................

[Sascha66]

The flying scenes look like a computer game, too much CG. Look at the way those fortresses are stacked with Messerschmitts and Mustangs roaring through the formation with guns blazing!

Me, I prefer the oldies like Tora, Tora, Tora, Aces High, Battle of Britain, Blue Max and Jet Pilot.

I din't like the NG movies Red Baron and Pearl Harbor - all the flying scenes seem so phoney!

[Bushpounder]

This movie is about the men, not their machines. It is a people story. I would not even look at the mechanical parts as being accurate. It is done in this form to enhance the excitment and the story, but the story is the men. It will have to be seen to see if they get that part right! I hope they do. I would expect some Hollywood in it, since that is its birthplace!

Don

[Cazzie]

I shall not see it, worst CGI I have seen in years, George Lucus is not Peter Jackson.

And I never realized all 12,000 B-17s ever built flew on one raid over Italy, including planes from the 381st BG. Oh please deliver me from people making pretentious BS. :isadizzy:

Caz

[CWOJackson]

There are some excellent books that describe the amazing contributions of these fine pilots. They do so without taking literary license, special effects or hyperbole. I'll take a pass on the movie and read a good book instead.

[pfflyers]

I kinda hate to do this but...

In defense of the movie producers you've got to look at their target audience.

Geezers like me who'd enjoy an almost documentary style movie don't buy enough tickets to make them the money they're looking for.

The kids who've grown up with CGI and game consoles are the ones who will make their money for them.

[stuartcox]

I don't like the CGI sequences either!
What's the matter with Lucas Films...? They have an almost unlimited budget to produce a blockbuster film and can't get it right.
The 'Battle of Britain' had better flying scenes, shot with real planes back in 1969!
Looks like flying the simulator in double speed!
The fast editing supposed to replicate drama and action, but all it does is give me a headache!
I bet that there is a built in love story too...! Well, Hollywood...!
As the film hasn't been released yet, I don't know whether to watch it or not.
I will wait for the first critics, as the base subject is really interesting.

[stuartcox]

I kinda hate to do this but...

In defense of the movie producers you've got to look at their target audience.

Geezers like me who'd enjoy an almost documentary style movie don't buy enough tickets to make them the money they're looking for.

The kids who've grown up with CGI and game consoles are the ones who will make their money for them.

Very true!

[Wittpilot]

I kind of hate that I am finding myself defending a modern day motion picture, but I guess someone has to. Yes, people will not & cannot replicate films like "12 O'Clock High" or "Battle of Britian". To me it makes sense that films made 40-50 years ago have better "effects", because back then they wer not "effects". You saw the real deal. The fact is that we just do not have the aircraft available to make movies like that. What we do have available would cost an astronomical number to group, re-paint, and film that the cost of the film would far outway any profit.

The problem as I see it is that many of us cannot separate between a documentary and a 'Hollywood' film. Yes certain films are more historically accurate, i.e. "Tora, Tora, Tora"... but others I can honestly say I see to be entertained, i.e., "Pearl Harbor", or "Flyboys".

As stated, if you want something with facts and seemingly historical truths, read a book or watch PBS, if you want to be entertained and just relax KNOWING that what you are watching cannot be taken for historical gospel, then give me "Red Tails".......

-witt

[hubbabubba]

I think that, when you put a "Based on actual events" in the opening credits, you have a responsibility toward historical accuracy. Inglourious Basterds made no such claims and was closer to reality than Flyboys and its fleet of all-red DrI.

And CG is no excuse for getting sloppy, quite the contrary in fact.

Those who fought and died "for real" deserved better...

[Sascha66]

I think that, when you put a "Based on actual events" in the opening credits, you have a responsibility toward historical accuracy. Inglourious Basterds made no such claims and was closer to reality than Flyboys and its fleet of all-red DrI.

And CG is no excuse for getting sloppy, quite the contrary in fact.

Those who fought and died "for real" deserved better...

Too true!

This shows what you can do with a limited budget but using REAL planes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOlbsEXLA
(Music was added by poster)

The trailer for this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKjR1V-Dg14

Even though they use Hispano-Suiza powered Buchons instead of a real Me109.

[Sascha66]

Some more from movie classic "Battle of Britain".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chhx1slfjA0

[stiz]

Too true!

This shows what you can do with a limited budget but using REAL planes:


dark blue world used re mastered/done up, scenes from BOB, if you watch both you can see which sections the used, they also show the process they used in the dvd extras bit :)


Also whilst i hate the soppy mush story they always seem to plaster on hollywood wartime movies, i dont mind the CGI, sure it aint real, but as witt said, we dont have the planes anymore, and you cant expect an non aviation nut to ever get it right!! :icon_lol:... also, at least theres something being said about them, sure might not be 100% accurate, but if it gets kids intrested in the history and they go off and read more into it, then that has to be a good thing right?

[Lateral-G]

Here's my comment from the other thread:


- I wasn't aware the 381st BG flew raids into Italy with the 15th AF.

- I wasn't aware the 15th AF could put 42,000 B-17s in the air all crammed together like that.

- I wasn't aware that the fate of the entire war rested solely on this plucky band of Real American Patriots- that the efforts of the 52nd FG, 86th FG, 325th FG, 33rd FG, 57th FG, 65th FG, 1st FG etc and the entire English component of the MAAF were completely for naught until the boys from Tuskegee showed up.

- I didn't realize the Bf 109G-6/R6 could hit 450MPH+ while racing in formation through a densely packed bomber formation.

- Minute 2.01 of the trailer... What is going on with those Me-262 markings? Yellow band? Yellow tail? Yellow Nose? Udet badge? Huh?


Seriously- the real story is awesome enough, the Tuskegee Airmen should rightly be looked upon as true heroes both for what they went through simply to serve our country and the part they played in securing the victory. But, they were one group out of many.

Why invent a truckload of ---- to over-sensationalize their contributions? It's an embarrassment to those who did serve and a terrible disservice to the other units who flew and fought almost completely anonymously, to minimize their contributions in this way.

Oh well, it's Hollywood.....and I'm sure it'll do well at the box office.

[Sascha66]

dark blue world used re mastered/done up, scenes from BOB, if you watch both you can see which sections the used, they also show the process they used in the dvd extras bit :)


Interesting! I din't know that - quality goes a loooong way.

[CWOJackson]

My question is, even though it's CG, what excuse is there for giving the aircraft such unrealistic characteristics? Production wise, it would take no more or less work to have the aircraft flying at realistic speeds, performing realistic maneuvers and not having Matrix effects projectiles as in Pearl Harbor.

Are audiences so jaded that they wouldn't go to see a movie where WWII aircraft didn't act like something from Star Wars? I really don't think so. I think Hollywood is too wrapped up in it's own version of reality 4.0.

[Astoroth]

My question is, even though it's CG, what excuse is there for giving the aircraft such unrealistic characteristics? Production wise, it would take no more or less work to have the aircraft flying at realistic speeds, performing realistic maneuvers and not having Matrix effects projectiles as in Pearl Harbor.

Are audiences so jaded that they wouldn't go to see a movie where WWII aircraft didn't act like something from Star Wars? I really don't think so. I think Hollywood is too wrapped up in it's own version of reality 4.0.

Hollywood, and especially the big name actors, are so far removed from reality they wouldn't know it if it bit them on the.......

[Terry]

Don't you think the Hollywood folks know that only a couple % of the population would spot the CGI errors and less than that would care. So why spend the extra money to get it right? We are a small minority and were not relevant at the box office.

[CWOJackson]

Don't you think the Hollywood folks know that only a couple % of the population would spot the CGI errors and less than that would care. So why spend the extra money to get it right? We are a small minority and were not relevant at the box office.

That's the point, it wouldn't cost any more or less to make it properly. Do they believe audiences are so unsophisticated that they wouldn't enjoy realism?

[Terry]

That's the point, it wouldn't cost any more or less to make it properly. Do they believe audiences are so unsophisticated that they wouldn't enjoy realism?

It would take longer for the CGI techs to get the flight physics and aircraft specs right, so it seems it would cost more.

Yes they do think we are unsophisticated as evidenced by the fact we keep paying to watch junk.

[stiz]

the thing with CGI is at the moment there isnt any "set it to go XXXMPH" you have to drag the model along a track, then click a button, then move it further one, the click another button. If you want the model to bank, then you have to rotate it at the same time, its time consuming to say the least, so when your under pressure from a big studio to get it done by a certain date i think that getting it to look exactly right goes out the window, even if the animators wanted it to be 100% accurate.

Dont get me wrong, i wish every CGI plane acted exactly like it should, but realisticly, unless you have a film that isnt under pressure to get it done as quickly as possible, its never gonna happen.

[Wittpilot]

I guess I just see it as, we here are knowledgeable about aviation.... WE know what looks phoney and what looks real... Now, take my wife for example.... She couldn't tell the difference in flight characteristics between my 4 year old flying a model Me-109 in the house from the real deal..... I guess I'm on the fence on this whole subject... Yes I like it better when things look right.... But Im realist and am able to realize, that it is just not likely to happen....

Look at it another way.... If a Mustang flew over your house right now @ 200 ft off the deck, how many of you would know immediately what it was before you dropped your brand new baby girl on the floor and ran out the front door into the street? <===== yes I did that...... Now how many of your aquaintences can you say would have the same knowledge????

-witt

[CWOJackson]

the thing with CGI is at the moment there isnt any "set it to go XXXMPH" you have to drag the model along a track, then click a button, then move it further one, the click another button. If you want the model to bank, then you have to rotate it at the same time, its time consuming to say the least, so when your under pressure from a big studio to get it done by a certain date i think that getting it to look exactly right goes out the window, even if the animators wanted it to be 100% accurate.

Dont get me wrong, i wish every CGI plane acted exactly like it should, but realisticly, unless you have a film that isnt under pressure to get it done as quickly as possible, its never gonna happen.

Thanks for the details Stiz. Wow, I just assumed it was a more automated process by now. CGI offers so much possibility but given the current restraints, big studios and directors "reality" I guess I was expecting too much.

[Panther_99FS]

I'm satisfied if it (movie) gets people to investigate into history a bit more through books, etc...

[Lateral-G]

I'm satisfied if it (movie) gets people to investigate into history a bit more through books, etc...

But that's the thing....HOW many will actually take the time to investigate further?

99.9% of the people that see this movie will take what is presented as the TRUTH and perpetuate a distorted view of history.

[Panther_99FS]

But that's the thing....HOW many will actually take the time to investigate further?

99.9% of the people that see this movie will take what is presented as the TRUTH and perpetuate a distorted view of history.

I don't think we can get an accurate estimate of this one way or the other...On the other side, there are legitimate film documentaries that exist....And this movie (bottom line) is entertainment...

[Eoraptor1]

Thanks for the details Stiz. Wow, I just assumed it was a more automated process by now. CGI offers so much possibility but given the current restraints, big studios and directors "reality" I guess I was expecting too much.

I saw George Lucas on television before Revenge of the Sith came out. I disctinctly remember him saying "You'd be surprised what computers can't do."

ATTN: Wittpilot,

I was driving along the road next to Niagara Falls International Airport one year and saw a newly restored Mustang parked outside one of the hangars. I nearly drove the car into a ditch.

JAMES

[hubbabubba]

I see here a debate developing between CGI and Historical accuracy; why?

Profits? Cameron's Titanic was, despite a romantic story plot, staying pretty close to historical facts and was not a bust at the box office if memory serves me...

Entertainment? A fleet of CG B-24 is as entertaining as a fleet of CG B-17, or am I missing something here?

Technology? I think that Lucas should have a conversation with Cameron. He would be surprised to know what computers can do.

Directors used to have historical consultants long before CGI came in. and I don't think that one is exclusive of the other.

[Panther_99FS]

Got an old neighbor who was a Tuskegee Airman & I know one local here who was a Tuskegee Airman, I'll try and find out from one of them what their take is on this movie.....:mixedsmi:

[stiz]

heres a twist i just though of ... top gun, look how many people that prolly got into the navy, are you telling me that was 100% acurate? :mixedsmi:

[SpitXIV]

It would take longer for the CGI techs to get the flight physics and aircraft specs right, so it seems it would cost more.

Yes they do think we are unsophisticated as evidenced by the fact we keep paying to watch junk.


As long as people pay to watch junk, they''ll keep making it. Maybe if we all stop
Watching them Hollyweird will wakeup and make better movies. George Lucas is working on the screenplay for Starwars 7,8 and 9. This movie is going on the George
Lucas's name.

[Smashing Time]

I too think the CGI in this movie looks bad from real world flight characteristics but in defense of the producers, so were some of the box office movies during WWII such as The Flying Tigers with John Wayne. Terrible models flying into each other,crashing to the ground etc. We still watch em.
:kilroy:

[Eoraptor1]

I admit, I'm very prejudiced in favor of actual airplanes rather than CGI, but as has already been stated, we don't have the planes anymore. If we're going to be really strict and even-handed about it, even the 109s in Battle of Britain were flying with the wrong engines. I'm willing to wait until Red Tails comes out before I pass judgement. Then I may have more to say.

JAMES

[Smashing Time]

I admit, I'm very prejudiced in favor of actual airplanes rather than CGI, but as has already been stated, we don't have the planes anymore. If we're going to be really strict and even-handed about it, even the 109s in Battle of Britain were flying with the wrong engines. I'm willing to wait until Red Tails comes out before I pass judgement. Then I may have more to say.

JAMES

And the Stuka's were models.

[CybrSlydr]

Personally, I can't wait to see is after watching the trailer.

[kilo delta]

Considering that the following cgi video was made about 6/7 years ago...I reckon that it's creator,Tochy, could teach Lucas' guys a thing or two when it comes to aviation related cgi....

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

[Wittpilot]

I was just thinking about those videos.... Now that is an example of something where someone took their time and did it right..... of course we do not know the amount of time put into something so complex looking that it leaves us drooling and wishing our sims could look like that......

[crashaz]

For Hollywood.... a good effort.... should they have had an aircraft expert there to tell them how combat planes fly?.... sure.


With the dwindling amount of planes.... CGI is the way to go... the cinematics are awesome I think.

For those of you pointing out Tora! Tora! Tora!... well there is no bigger expert here on that movie or Pearl Harbor. Battleship Row looked cool in the 70's.... but they do look like toy models now compared even with the awwwwwwful Pearl Harbor... and their CGI battlewagons.

Lets see what a historical nut like Bruce McKenna is going to do for CGI in Battle of Midway 3D.

Bet he uses Lucasfilms also... so maybe they learn something from this... and improve the scene where Waldron and Torpedo 8 are skimming the waves and Dick Best comes screaming down on Akagi!

[Piglet]

Heck, if computers can do everything, why not have them do things RIGHT!?!?

[TARPSBird]

I remember a thread similar to this on my Lionel Train forum last year when Unstoppable came out in the theaters. In that movie a veteran locomotive engineer and his rookie conductor attempt to stop a runaway freight train before it crashes in an urban area. It was a real "train geek" festival as everybody blustered about why it was unrealistic, they weren't going to see it, it gave the public a bad impression of real railroads, etc. etc. I felt they should have opened the f-stops on their sphincters a bit and just gone to see the movie, it was a good action flick.

Same thought here with the Red Tails movie. As aviation buffs we want it to be 100% historically accurate or (harumph) we're not gonna go see it. Hollywood wants it to be a fast-action aerial shoot-'em-up featuring an assortment of well-known African-American actors who will hopefully attract viewers across ethnic lines. If it happens to teach a little history while it makes good $$ at the box office, that's fine with Hollywood but $$ is the bottom line. I'm gonna go see the movie in January, if the fleeting glimpses of Luftwaffe markings are inaccurate I'm not gonna have a stroke over it. :icon_lol: