Flyboys, not too bad..

[Warship NWS]

Granted a bit of it was not as realistic as it could be it was still an enjoyable movie. I did find it odd that all enemy planes were Fokker DR1s (all painted Red except for one black one), Gothas, and a Zepplin however.. what happened to the other German "scouts"? The Albatross was built, for example, in far greater numbers. The Fokker mostly gained notoriety due to the Red Baron but the Albatross was in many ways more popular among the German pilots. The Neiuport 17s were a nice touch though and a show of which planes were given to various squadrons that were noted at the start.

Compared to the silly Pearl Harbor movie Flyboys was more enjoyable and gave a moderate level of realism (exception, the bullets did not leave "smoke trails" which I think was added for effect) in terms of plane damage, the mixed human factor of pilots, decent flight modeling, some of the horrors of war even without the gore, etc.. If watched closely enough they did toss in some historical nickel knowledge tid bits that were interesting to note.

I rate the movie as "good" (poor to excellent system). For a PG-13 movie while not trying to push the "R" rating yet still retaining enough realities of war it did fairly well. Considering the gibberish that often movies are made off today Flyboys at least did not toss out all realms of reality just to focus on some soap opera drama.. they stuck to the lives of the pilots and their sacrifices in combat.

Thanks.

[djcyclone]

I read somewhere that a good majority of the German Airforce painted their aircraft red after it became known that Britain and France had a special squadron out hunting for the Red Baron. That might be what the movie was trying to incorperate in all of the red planes.

The smoking bullets was a funny add on though. And I have to disagree about Pearl Harbor. I think it could have been better, but it was good enough. Now they need to make another Midway Movie. That would be pretty sharp with today's movie technology. And when are they going to make a good surface to surface fighting movie?

[old_pop2000]

Some factual mistakes that I caught:

1. The time period for this movie is April 1916, the Fokker Dr 1 wasn't operational until September of 1917 and only 350 were built.

2. Bristol and SE 5A's weren't available either

3. Some of the maneuvers, like the nose high stall turn were not possible by the underpowered aircraft. In almost all cases, they would have stalled and spun into the ground.

4. The sounds made by the engines in the DR1 was not accurate. It was a rotary. They did not have throttles, just on or off. Very distinctive sound.


There were more like close ups of the aircraft reveals a radial engine, not a rotary.

[john964]

Granted a bit of it was not as realistic as it could be it was still an enjoyable movie. I did find it odd that all enemy planes were Fokker DR1s (all painted Red except for one black one), Gothas, and a Zepplin however.. what happened to the other German "scouts"? The Albatross was built, for example, in far greater numbers. The Fokker mostly gained notoriety due to the Red Baron but the Albatross was in many ways more popular among the German pilots. The Neiuport 17s were a nice touch though and a show of which planes were given to various squadrons that were noted at the start.

Compared to the silly Pearl Harbor movie Flyboys was more enjoyable and gave a moderate level of realism (exception, the bullets did not leave "smoke trails" which I think was added for effect) in terms of plane damage, the mixed human factor of pilots, decent flight modeling, some of the horrors of war even without the gore, etc.. If watched closely enough they did toss in some historical nickel knowledge tid bits that were interesting to note.

I rate the movie as "good" (poor to excellent system). For a PG-13 movie while not trying to push the "R" rating yet still retaining enough realities of war it did fairly well. Considering the gibberish that often movies are made off today Flyboys at least did not toss out all realms of reality just to focus on some soap opera drama.. they stuck to the lives of the pilots and their sacrifices in combat.

Thanks.Chris, I belive we discussed this before in the old forum before it went boink. If you have the DVD try listening to the commentary it gives out a lot of info on the behind the sinces. Like that the Neiuports in the film were replicas made from orginal plans and several of the aircraft in the areodrome scines are real WWI aircraft and not replicas and props IIRC the SE-5a and the 1-1/2 strutter are real.

[djcyclone]

Some factual mistakes that I caught:

1. The time period for this movie is April 1916, the Fokker Dr 1 wasn't operational until September of 1917 and only 350 were built.

2. Bristol and SE 5A's weren't available either

3. Some of the maneuvers, like the nose high stall turn were not possible by the underpowered aircraft. In almost all cases, they would have stalled and spun into the ground.

4. The sounds made by the engines in the DR1 was not accurate. It was a rotary. They did not have throttles, just on or off. Very distinctive sound.


There were more like close ups of the aircraft reveals a radial engine, not a rotary.



I did notice the whole concept of extreme meneuvers made in the move. When I first saw the movie, I questioned whether or not an old air craft could do that. In the end, my only answer was maybe due to the fact that they where so light weight, and made of such cheep materials.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Granted a bit of it was not as realistic as it could be it was still an enjoyable movie. I did find it odd that all enemy planes were Fokker DR1s (all painted Red except for one black one), Gothas, and a Zepplin however.. what happened to the other German "scouts"? The Albatross was built, for example, in far greater numbers. The Fokker mostly gained notoriety due to the Red Baron but the Albatross was in many ways more popular among the German pilots. The Neiuport 17s were a nice touch though and a show of which planes were given to various squadrons that were noted at the start.

Compared to the silly Pearl Harbor movie Flyboys was more enjoyable and gave a moderate level of realism (exception, the bullets did not leave "smoke trails" which I think was added for effect) in terms of plane damage, the mixed human factor of pilots, decent flight modeling, some of the horrors of war even without the gore, etc.. If watched closely enough they did toss in some historical nickel knowledge tid bits that were interesting to note.

I rate the movie as "good" (poor to excellent system). For a PG-13 movie while not trying to push the "R" rating yet still retaining enough realities of war it did fairly well. Considering the gibberish that often movies are made off today Flyboys at least did not toss out all realms of reality just to focus on some soap opera drama.. they stuck to the lives of the pilots and their sacrifices in combat.

Thanks.

Chris:

It sounds worth a rental. Oh and on the subject of Pearl Harbor, my wife recently picked up a two set DVD on Pearl Harbor that is mainly a mix of period movies, interviews with verterans (Japanese and American) and some CGI to show the ship placement at Pearl. It was a thousand times better than that piece of crap movie and we got it for $5.00. Its full title is "Attack on Pearl Harbor; A Day of Infamy". Highly recommended.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Some factual mistakes that I caught:

1. The time period for this movie is April 1916, the Fokker Dr 1 wasn't operational until September of 1917 and only 350 were built.

2. Bristol and SE 5A's weren't available either

3. Some of the maneuvers, like the nose high stall turn were not possible by the underpowered aircraft. In almost all cases, they would have stalled and spun into the ground.

4. The sounds made by the engines in the DR1 was not accurate. It was a rotary. They did not have throttles, just on or off. Very distinctive sound.


There were more like close ups of the aircraft reveals a radial engine, not a rotary.

Dennis:

Was the Fokker DVII in service at that time? What about the Spad? Or were they mainly 1917 planes?

[Warship NWS]

Dennis:

Was the Fokker DVII in service at that time? What about the Spad? Or were they mainly 1917 planes?

The D7 was not available until 1918 and was arguably the best fighter of the war. Personaly, the time frame might have been set for 1916 as Dennis mentioned but by the time they finished their training, educated guess here, they may not have started flying until 1917 when the Neuiport 17 was already available and near the end of the movie the Americans entered the war. I agree about the SE5a.. that was not built until 1917. Of course we were not given a lot of specific dates in the movie as the training and fighting in the air progressed. They seemed to skip through a lot.. personaly they could have left out the little kissing love deal to add more battle content.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

To DJ,



And I have to disagree about Pearl Harbor. I think it could have been better, but it was good enough.


IMHO, PH was a pure farse covered up with fancy CGI. Flyboys at least had WW1 material throughout rather then using modern warships in the harbor mixed in with CGIs of battleship row as was done with PH. The plane fight was bogus and the love story was a sick joke. I will give them credit for the carnage of the fight but the little value of the movie was buried under 90% BS. Tora Tora Tora puts it to shame even without having all the fancy CGI and gives a far better historical lesson of the battle then PH ever offered.

Just my 20 cents anyways..;)

[Warship NWS]

Dates of aircraft;

Nieuport 11 5/16
Nieuport 17 6/16
Spad 7 8/16
Pup 10/16
Sop Tripeplane 2/17
SE6a 6/17
Spad 13 6/17
Camel 6/17
Nieuport 27 3/18
Snipe 10/18

Halb D2 6/16
Alb D2 10/16
Alb D3 1/17
Alb D5 6/17
Dr1 10/17
Pfalz D3 10/17
D7 4/18
D8 8/18

[djcyclone]

To DJ,



IMHO, PH was a pure farse covered up with fancy CGI. Flyboys at least had WW1 material throughout rather then using modern warships in the harbor mixed in with CGIs of battleship row as was done with PH. The plane fight was bogus and the love story was a sick joke. I will give them credit for the carnage of the fight but the little value of the movie was buried under 90% BS. Tora Tora Tora puts it to shame even without having all the fancy CGI and gives a far better historical lesson of the battle then PH ever offered.

Just my 20 cents anyways..;)



Yes I know, I noticed the Sprunce class Destroyers exploding in the movie. I just laughed, since I know they could have spent some money and made a computer image that looked like actual Battleships, or WW II destroyers. The Battleships where not lined up like that anyway. I do agree that Tora Tora Tora did a good job, but that is old, like Midway is. They need to redo those movies with modern technology.

[Warship NWS]

Yes I know, I noticed the Sprunce class Destroyers exploding in the movie. I just laughed, since I know they could have spent some money and made a computer image that looked like actual Battleships, or WW II destroyers. The Battleships where not lined up like that anyway. I do agree that Tora Tora Tora did a good job, but that is old, like Midway is. They need to redo those movies with modern technology.

Midway done with CGI and based on Parshalls work.. now that would be a war movie. Sad, the most that has even been done is the "360" series .. but that shows that even the slightest effort at good research makes a big difference.

[Saffron]

Tora Tora Tora puts it to shame even without having all the fancy CGI and gives a far better historical lesson of the battle then PH ever offered.

Wasn't it true though that Tora Tora Tora used Essex class carriers as Japanese carriers? Seems to me I even remember that they had angled flight decks and modern radar arrays on the islands (and Japanese carriers had tiny or no islands).

Personally I think Pearl Harbor is one of the most unjustly maligned movies in Hollywood. Yep, I know I'm going against the grain here, but aside from the romance angle (you can't have a movie without romance in it ... doesn't seem to matter what genre it is), there was a lot of factual info there. When I read John Toland's "The Rising Sun," I was amazed at how much about the Pearl Harbor movie was accurate, right down to the exact words used by some of the historical characters. Whenever the detractors bring up Pearl Harbor, the only sticking points I ever really hear about are 1) the modern ships and 2) the romance (unfortunately, they were trying to re-create a "Titanic-esque" movie ... a romance set to the backdrop of a historical event.) Once I heard that the movie had the torpedo planes attacking first when in reality it was the bombers, but otherwise, they seemed to have gotten far more right than wrong.

[Warship NWS]

Wasn't it true though that Tora Tora Tora used Essex class carriers as Japanese carriers? Seems to me I even remember that they had angled flight decks and modern radar arrays on the islands (and Japanese carriers had tiny or no islands).

That was the movie Midway. TTT used models of the IJN CVs IIRC. It is more understandable for the movies of those time frames to use whatever ships they could find as CGI did not exist and models would only work if nothing is moving on the ship.. example, aircraft taking off and landing. Example, Sink the Bismarck used all models except for a few cut scenes of the Swordfish crews.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The D7 was not available until 1918 and was arguably the best fighter of the war. Personaly, the time frame might have been set for 1916 as Dennis mentioned but by the time they finished their training, educated guess here, they may not have started flying until 1917 when the Neuiport 17 was already available and near the end of the movie the Americans entered the war. I agree about the SE5a.. that was not built until 1917. Of course we were not given a lot of specific dates in the movie as the training and fighting in the air progressed. They seemed to skip through a lot.. personaly they could have left out the little kissing love deal to add more battle content.

Thanks.

Chris:

Thanks for the details. You know Hollywood, sex and violence sells and I'm not sure in what proportion?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Dates of aircraft;

Nieuport 11 5/16
Nieuport 17 6/16
Spad 7 8/16
Pup 10/16
Sop Tripeplane 2/17
SE6a 6/17
Spad 13 6/17
Camel 6/17
Nieuport 27 3/18
Snipe 10/18

Halb D2 6/16
Alb D2 10/16
Alb D3 1/17
Alb D5 6/17
Dr1 10/17
Pfalz D3 10/17
D7 4/18
D8 8/18


Chris:

Well that's some good research, the forum dog must be taking a nap LOL!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Wasn't it true though that Tora Tora Tora used Essex class carriers as Japanese carriers? Seems to me I even remember that they had angled flight decks and modern radar arrays on the islands (and Japanese carriers had tiny or no islands).

Personally I think Pearl Harbor is one of the most unjustly maligned movies in Hollywood. Yep, I know I'm going against the grain here, but aside from the romance angle (you can't have a movie without romance in it ... doesn't seem to matter what genre it is), there was a lot of factual info there. When I read John Toland's "The Rising Sun," I was amazed at how much about the Pearl Harbor movie was accurate, right down to the exact words used by some of the historical characters. Whenever the detractors bring up Pearl Harbor, the only sticking points I ever really hear about are 1) the modern ships and 2) the romance (unfortunately, they were trying to re-create a "Titanic-esque" movie ... a romance set to the backdrop of a historical event.) Once I heard that the movie had the torpedo planes attacking first when in reality it was the bombers, but otherwise, they seemed to have gotten far more right than wrong.

Saffron:


Gotta call you on this one. Pearl Harbor while it meant to play to a wider audience didn't even get the details right. There have been plenty of movies on the topic, but the director would have been far better off just taking 12 individuals who experienced Pearl Harbor and telling their stories, live or die. The true drama of history would have provided enough details for any hack screen writer to work with. This movie is just lazy sloppy crap from a team that proports to try and tell the military's side of things. Just my opinion. Think of what you feel about "Braveheart" as an objective historian.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

Well that's some good research, the forum dog must be taking a nap LOL!

Actually, its out the back of the old Microprose Knights of the Sky manual from the mid 1980s.. a game I played for days on end until Red Baron came along by Sierra. These are the times when us gamers appreciated our games for the game play and fun rather then just fancy graphics. ;)

[john964]

Actually, its out the back of the old Microprose Knights of the Sky manual from the mid 1980s.. a game I played for days on end until Red Baron came along by Sierra. These are the times when us gamers appreciated our games for the game play and fun rather then just fancy graphics. ;)Try the table top game Canvas Eagles. I play it regularly in 1/72 scale. There is a online game that is a lot like CE except no alltitued changes IIRC its called Blue Max.

[Warship NWS]

Try the table top game Canvas Eagles. I play it regularly in 1/72 scale. There is a online game that is a lot like CE except no alltitued changes IIRC its called Blue Max.

Kind of interesting to play Knights of the Sky again and the original Red Baron on my PC. DOSBox is such a cool way to play oldies. ;)