Fortress (2011 film) merged threads

ILMAO

:p lol….that disclaimer is brilliant. Sums up some of the anorakery in many web forums like this…ahhh…I can just visualise a few backsides in their seats squirming as they read that. Just brilliant…:dev2: Peace.

Regarding A225HVY’s mention of the disclaimer….:rolleyes:

I thought it was hilarious for them to make that statement!!

Mind you I am easily amused and dont take life tooooo seriously

I quite enjoyed it, better than that Red Tails trailer a while back, although excessive use of current language and phrases made it hard to believe this was 1943.

The CGI was good in parts, poor in others. I think someone has already commented that when used as background, CGI can be totally convincing but when the CGI is to the fore, the weaknesses become all too apparent. I think the combat scenes must be the hardest to get right. I thought the ones in this movie were actually bit better than the ones in the Red Tails trailer.

If the CGI was wonky in places, that replica B17 flight deck was even worse – you could imagine stage hands rocking it around as the scene called for turbulence or flak.

Still, all in all, it entertained me for an hour and a bit.

Regarding A225HVY’s mention of the disclaimer….:rolleyes:

I’ve watched and thorougly enjoyed it as a time waster on a recent flight..

Watch it to the end and read the disclaimer from the producers it’s hilarious, extracting the urine from aircarft buffs:D:D:D

Watching it, is rather like picking up a pretty girl at a dance and discovering in the car she’s a ladyboy. Rather disconcerting….!

ha, ha, very good

.

CGI.

Judging from the trailer the film is very heavily reliant on CGI. On occasions, CGI in unavoidable. Other times it can look spookily real, but on the whole it just tends to look daft. I think if viewers have spent a lot of time with their heads in PC games and X-Box and the like, they’ll tend to be quite comfortable with it, whereas anyone who’s spent time flying will see and feel it all looks very wrong. The CGI models themselves or often pretty good, but a lot of the camera angles and editing err towards the weaker areas of CGI and spoil the end result. Pity. Watching it, is rather like picking up a pretty girl at a dance and discovering in the car she’s a ladyboy. Rather disconcerting….! :diablo:

Crappy CGI, too much “war is just” absurdity.

Wow, Key publishing forum being lukewarm to pleased about this movie. Best verdict ever on this board I think?

It means I GOTTA SEE THIS.

watched it last night – fair play to them, the end credits put a piece up explaining that it couldnt be absolutely A1.

Some of the CGI is pretty rough but some of it is quite superb and some of the best renderings I have seen – I thought that the majority of the flight dynamics were spot on. The initial dogfight was most impressive…

All in all, well done filmmaker fellas.

TT

So C’mon guys, buy it/request it for Christmas?.or not.
Opinions needed, I take it that it’s a no from Moggs?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Brought it at Tesco for £8 today and just watched it. It certainly won’t be winning any Oscars and it’s easy for aviation fans to pick holes in it. But… it’s ok.

The plot and acting are all good. The CGI is ok although I always think it looks better when it’s made to look like it’s filmed from a camara ship, rather than “clever” close pass shots. Considering it was made for only $5m I think it’s a good effort.

Peter

That’s a good way of looking at it, but there are some parts that are not well considered like looking at the arrows for winding the gear down in the bomb bay, but no reference holes or anything else where the crank would go in.
I also remember at least one scene of a 17 landing, but the tail wheel was not down whereas there are some scenes where the tail wheels seem to be half down in normal flight.
I also liked the modern copper piping with capilliary soldered joints (supposedly from a 17, but they never had any such copper pipe), with modern ball valve which was slung together for the still.

I’m glad i’ve got it though.

The film will be watched by 99% of viewers that wouldn’t know of these faults but hopefully the storyline and the sacrifices made are more accurately portrayed and understood.

It’s watchable, at the very least.

That’s a good way of looking at it, but there are some parts that are not well considered like looking at the arrows for winding the gear down in the bomb bay, but no reference holes or anything else where the crank would go in.
I also remember at least one scene of a 17 landing, but the tail wheel was not down whereas there are some scenes where the tail wheels seem to be half down in normal flight.
I also liked the modern copper piping with capilliary soldered joints (supposedly from a 17, but they never had any such copper pipe), with modern ball valve which was slung together for the still.

I’m glad i’ve got it though.

It’s watchable, at the very least.

So C’mon guys, buy it/request it for Christmas?.or not.
Opinions needed, I take it that it’s a no from Moggs?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Just saw it in our Tescos £10

Actually is states it’s based on true events, not a story.

The group markings are very clear as those of the 99th Bomb Group comprising the 346th, 347th, 348th & 416th Bomb Squadrons.

Sorry, my fault, I was simply going from memory.

And, admittedly, I’m no expert on Bomber Groups at all! 😉

The thing is, this film is claimed to be based on a true story, and I’m curious as to which one it could be?

Actually is states it’s based on true events, not a story.

There’s no mention (that I recall) of any Bomber Group or squadron.
Any takers?

The group markings are very clear as those of the 99th Bomb Group comprising the 346th, 347th, 348th & 416th Bomb Squadrons.

I am split with this one.

I’ve had the film a few weeks and personally thought that it had conurtations of taking the P out of memphis belle all through and even up to the end where it is displayed accross the screen something like “No B-17’s were harmed in the making of this film”. Humourous

Some of the actors gave me an impression of look-a-likes from the belle film.
Some of the CGi looked pony whilst some of it looked good.
I got the impression that they made it so that it would not be the same as the memphis belle, but they made sure there was enough in it that would make you think of comparisons.

There’s great little bits that show detailed procedures like activating the fire extinguishers and feathering a prop.

Spose because it’s a subject I like so much, i’ll at least half like it anyway.

I don’t know about the whole story being based on fact, but I’m sure I recall reading about a Fort that looped in one of Roger Freeman’s books. It was climbing and ran into another aircrafts slipstream, throwing it backwards over the top of a loop from which they were able to recover. It did however bend the wings and strip lots of rivets!

and why are they firing lasers not machine guns?