Jump to content

Midway (Nov 2019)


bschoolprof

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

My 9 year old loves everything WW2. I've been careful not to give him too much but he's cool with Memphis Belle, Tuskegee Airmen, and Dunkirk.  Good to go on this one?

I think so.  There is death and a semi-gruesome charred body in one scene, but no body parts flying around or anything.  I took my 11 year old boy.  He thought it was the best movie he’s ever seen and said he thought it would be ok for a 9 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a very good movie, it was over 2 hours long and never seemed to drag.  Very straightforward view of the battle and not an ounce of political correctness.

Also added in some completely factual Japanese atrocities to make the Chinese partners happy.

Would definitely recommend it to parents with 9-14 year old kids.  Not as gruesome as Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 10:03 AM, RomaVicta said:

 

AffectionateObeseBlacklab-small.gif

 

Bing-fucking-go!

Zeros flying between palm trees ten feet over the street. The same thing repeated over and over; planes doing things planes and pilots don't/can't do. And it all looks like a cartoon. That takes me right out of a movie.

It looks like you'll also have the usual set of two-dimensional historical characters played with great earnestness by pretty American actors. Put these guys on the screen with most of the cast and the cast shrivels into raisins.

maxresdefault.jpg

 But the audience created by the studios doesn't much care for dimension. Thanks.

I don't think the Japanese were "attacking our freedom," but that's been an inapt catchphrase for a long time.

This movie looks awful. 

I can understand fearing this up front based on Pearl Harbor and the trailer, but I think the final product is better.  It even has Yamamoto saying he doesn’t think Japan could win a protracted war with the U.S. and says that if Japan is deprived of oil she will have to go to war (providing context for Pearl Harbor and the desire for a decisive naval battle early).  It does a good job, imo, of providing context like this that makes the why of Midway and even the Pacific war accessible.

You’ll have to accept zeros stranding the streets of Honolulu, backseat gunners being implausibly accurate and that the characters are mostly two dimensional.  But there are plenty of solid, entertaining movies that stretch the boundaries of believability and don’t have say, Joaquin Phoenix playing the Joker.  That’s where I think Midway 2019 falls - solid, entertaining and historically informative to those who aren’t history buffs.

Edited by Goredho
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goredho said:

I can understand fearing this up front based on Pearl Harbor and the trailer, but I think the final product is better.  It even has Yamamoto saying he doesn’t think Japan could win a protracted war with the U.S. and says that if Japan is deprived of oil she will have to go to war (providing context for Pearl Harbor and the desire for a decisive naval battle early).  It does a good job, imo, of providing context like this that makes the why of Midway and even the Pacific war accessible.

The characters are mostly two dimensional, but there are plenty of solid, entertaining movies that don’t have say, Joaquin Phoenix playing the Joker.  That’s where I think Midway 2019 falls - solid, entertaining and historically informative to those who aren’t history buffs.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. We'll see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Goredho said:

One notable omission on strategy was nothing about the Japanese diversion towards the Aleutians, but I’m okay with it.  I think they crammed as much as they could into the movie.

The Aleutians deserve more than a mention, as there were tens of thousands of allied troops & navy involved up there under exceedingly miserable conditions. Plus my Dad was stuck in that shithole from 1942-43.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

The Aleutians deserve more than a mention, as there were tens of thousands of allied troops & navy involved up there under exceedingly miserable conditions. Plus my Dad was stuck in that shithole from 1942-43.

Rep for your dad’s shithole assignment.  I agree, But it would have been hard for them to cram more into the movie.  Definitely strategically significant because without the Aleutian’s front the Japanese could have had two more carriers at Midway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it Sunday and it was good.  The characters they focused on were critical to the action and while there was a little video game feel to some of the combat, for the most part it looked damned good and the pacing was excellent I thought.  Looks fantastic on the big screen and it doesn't pull any punches about the true cost of war.

Hollywood never gets strafing right so that's a little annoying but it was intense and nice to look at for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 1:49 PM, Armybrat said:

The Aleutians deserve more than a mention, as there were tens of thousands of allied troops & navy involved up there under exceedingly miserable conditions. Plus my Dad was stuck in that shithole from 1942-43.

I'm sorry did you mean your son?

 

Also, glad to hear this is pretty entertaining.  I was planning on seeing it tomorrow on discount day with the wife anyways, but I was just hoping for good action/battle scenes and crappy dialogue, glad it's more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The acting by all of the pilots was wooden, but everyone else did a solid job. The action outside of the pearl harbor scene was fantastic, and the movie did a great job of covering all of the major players in the 138 min run time. There was very little screen time wasted, and i felt like the movie flew by

 

Overall, it was a good updated version of the 60s Midway, and was enjoyable. Its not gonna win any awards, but I was entertained

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Ace of Aces said:

Here yes, but RT reviews are equally dire. 

Yeah, 40% of critics liked it and 90% of audience reviewers liked it at the time I decided to take a flier on it.  Dunno if that has changed.

 I think a lot depends on your expectations.  It’s not going to compare favorably to, say, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. But I do think it compares favorably to shitfests like Pearl Harbor, which just about ruined WWII movies for me, and things like Dunkirk and Thin Red Line that I could appreciate the cinematography of but that ultimately were boring dead fucks like my mom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Yeah, 40% of critics liked it and 90% of audience reviewers liked it at the time I decided to take a flier on it.  Dunno if that has changed.

 I think a lot depends on your expectations.  It’s not going to compare favorably to, say, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. But I do think it compares favorably to shitfests like Pearl Harbor, which just about ruined WWII movies for me, and things like Dunkirk and Thin Red Line that I could appreciate the cinematography of but that ultimately were boring dead fucks like my mom.

How does it compare to ... Midway? The original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Goredho said:

Equivalent quality across the board, with an advantage over the original as far as strategic context and historical accuracy, imo.

Basically this.  They got the history mostly right.  The CGI was a little heavy handed in places, but ships and planes looked better than most CGI I've seen before. 

A few cons:  

I have several minor complaints about the aviation bits (mostly they got the paint jobs all wrong, but hey, Hollywood; showed several B-26s, rather than the 4 that actually made it out to bomb, etc.).  The flying physics was rough to watch at times (i.e., Zero gets it's wing shot off, still flies straight and level for a bit).  Showing SBDs going down all over the place on the diving runs - that didn't happen.  

The guy who played Best was unfortunately a bit of a collection of old rebellious warrior tropes.

The uniforms were apparently linen and all wrinkled.  I know this is minor, but it just stuck out like a sore thumb after having read so many books and seen so many pics of WWII era soldiers and sailors cleaned and pressed.  

Those were the cons.  Pros:

1. Many different period aircraft were represented, as opposed to the original where they had to convert available types to look sorta kinda like the originals.

2.  As I said above, they got the history mostly right.  

Given the budget, I would've much rather seen a Hanks/Spielberg treatment of the subject matter than the guy who did Independence Day.  Something with a bit more gravitas.

But they crammed a fair bit of a fascinating story into a couple hours and still made it entertaining.  Chad Jr., who's nearly 7, was a bit frightened by the Pearl Harbor scene, but the rest he enjoyed.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

 

The guy who played Best was unfortunately a bit of a collection of old rebellious warrior tropes.

 

topgun.jpg?w=681&h=383&crop=1

11 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

Anyone play that 90’s PC game Aces of the Pacific? Man, I was obsessed with that game.  

 

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not far behind Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe for me.

If you liked those games and want a crack-like addiction, check out Aces High.  Multiplayer online WWII combat sim with very realistic flight model/physics.  Normal gameplay is a 3-way battle for strategic objectives using whatever planes you want, but the have regular organized events recreating battles like Midway.
 

https://www.hitechcreations.com/index.php

Edited by Goredho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The acting by all of the pilots was wooden, but everyone else did a solid job. The action outside of the pearl harbor scene was fantastic, and the movie did a great job of covering all of the major players in the 138 min run time. There was very little screen time wasted, and i felt like the movie flew by

 

Overall, it was a good updated version of the 60s Midway, and was enjoyable. Its not gonna win any awards, but I was entertained

1976, my 8th grade history class went to see it at the theater, anyone that wanted to go anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Goredho said:

topgun.jpg?w=681&h=383&crop=1

 

If you liked those games and want a crack-like addiction, check out Aces High.  Multiplayer online WWII combat sim with very realistic flight model/physics.  Normal gameplay is a 3-way battle for strategic objectives using whatever planes you want, but the have regular organized events recreating battles like Midway.
 

https://www.hitechcreations.com/index.php

I used to play AH daily since 2002, but the quality of play and customer service went in the shitter. Pulled the plug a couple years ago and never looked back. Is Hitech still married to his mail order Russian wife or has she cleaned him out?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RPM said:

I used to play AH daily since 2002, but the quality of play and customer service went in the shitter. Pulled the plug a couple years ago and never looked back. Is Hitech still married to his mail order Russian wife or has she cleaned him out?

 

No clue, I quit playing awhile ago, too.  But man it was a blast for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goredho said:

No clue, I quit playing awhile ago, too.  But man it was a blast for awhile.

Truth. I started out playing Aces Over Europe, then Pacific on a 286. Then Air Warrior came out online and the serious addiction started. I still hate EA Sports for buying AW just to kill the game use the online tech. That took me to AH. Flew with the BoP.

I honestly hope the movie is good. It's an important chunk of history that deserves credit where due. I'm sure that the percentage of people under 35 that know about the battle is shockingly low.

Point to consider, while it did win the weekend box office, It only brought in $5m more than John Cena's kid flick. Ford v Ferrari is going to nuke them all off the map this weekend.

Edited by RPM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RPM said:

Truth. I started out playing Aces Over Europe, then Pacific on a 286. Then Air Warrior came out online and the serious addiction started. I still hate EA Sports for buying AW just to kill the game use the online tech. That took me to AH. Flew with the BoP.

I honestly hope the movie is good. It's an important chunk of history that deserves credit where due. I'm sure that the percentage of people under 35 that know about the battle is shockingly low.

Point to consider, while it did win the weekend box office, It only brought in $5m more than John Cena's kid flick. Ford v Ferrari is going to nuke them all off the map this weekend.

Yeah, I came in after all the AW mess. Played as Gordo with the FDBs.  Spent a lot of night's drunk and laughing trying to fly in that silly game.

The movie isn't great, but it is good enough.  It entertained my kid and I and made Midway more comprehensible and tangible to him while not taking many liberties with history.  Which is basically what the first movie did for me (excepting the liberties with history).  We have a familial connection to it -- my grandfather's younger brother flew in VT-8 and died the first day along with almost everyone else in those shitty torpedo planes.  He received the Navy Cross and had a destroyer named after him and shit.  Now my son better understands what he did, what he was up against, the role it played in the bigger picture of the battle and why it was so significant.

I'm loving reading that other dad's here are taking their sons to see it and that they are enjoying it, too.  I'm glad that girls are getting so much positive entertainment targeted at them these days (I have one of them, too), but it seems harder to find such content geared for boys than when I was growing up.  No cloak room on that shit.

Edited by Goredho
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of things were left out, which is normal, but one added thing thing is sticking in my mind: the Dauntless dive bombers are shown with the rear gunner facing forward, then swiveling around to fire their twin machine guns--there was no swiveling around.


So this has sent me on a deep dive. Are you saying that when going into combat that they would’ve been facing aft? You aren’t saying the seats don’t swivel, correct?

Btw, for those who didn’t know already, there is a Midway veteran SBD at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. A truly rare bird in a great museum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy in the rear seat faced aft---before, during, and after combat.  I suppose he could have unbuckled his seat belt, turned around, and got up on his knees in the seat to look forward--but I seriously doubt it.  Why would the seat swivel?  If the seat swiveled, what would happen to the machine gun(s)? The tail gunner in a B-17 also faced to the rear-it is what tail gunners do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, idahorn said:

The guy in the rear seat faced aft---before, during, and after combat.  I suppose he could have unbuckled his seat belt, turned around, and got up on his knees in the seat to look forward--but I seriously doubt it.  Why would the seat swivel?  If the seat swiveled, what would happen to the machine gun(s)? The tail gunner in a B-17 also faced to the rear-it is what tail gunners do.

What is the highlighted statement based upon?  To be clear, I'm not engaging this for "gotcha," rather this kind of stuff interests me and I'm interested in sourcing this info.  The tailgunner in a B-17 is apples to oranges.  AAF vs. Navy.  Totally different design philosophies and applications.  The Navy usually went for redundancy in a way the AAF did not.  

He doesn't need to unbuckle his seatbelt, as the seatbelt attached to the swiveling (for firing) seat:

7855d0ae829e74b510d1a46ab7cc2a34.jpg

Another view with the seat forward, a place for a second stick in the floor, rudder pedals, morse code key, and compass.  

14491689135_d31ef4d725_b.jpg

Here's a pic with the rear gunner facing forward:

guadalcanal.jpg?itok=gvDgcTle

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  Had never heard of this. No explanation on my part except that the shot of the Dauntless in the air makes me think it was a trainer; and what is done with the rear windscreen when the gun is being used?  I appreciate the input and don't mind a "gotcha" if I really am gotten.  

E.g., I had a long discussion several years ago about the British light bomber the Mosquito.  My friend said it was made of plywood and I insisted it was made from balsa.  Turns out the structural members were plywood and the shaped surfaces were balsa.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, idahorn said:

Interesting.  Had never heard of this. No explanation on my part except that the shot of the Dauntless in the air makes me think it was a trainer; and what is done with the rear windscreen when the gun is being used?  I appreciate the input and don't mind a "gotcha" if I really am gotten.  

E.g., I had a long discussion several years ago about the British light bomber the Mosquito.  My friend said it was made of plywood and I insisted it was made from balsa.  Turns out the structural members were plywood and the shaped surfaces were balsa.

Rear windscreen shifts forward.  See it here on the Midway vet example from NMNA in Pensacola:

blog-douglas-sbd-2-dauntless-2106-2w2a00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...