"Red Tails" trailer.

If we are generally recommending aviation films and trailers that make you want to see the film, I should’ve mentioned earlier our own Steve Hatton’s Into the Wind.

http://www.intothewind.co.uk/#

Recommended.

Thanks for that! 😎

If we are generally recommending aviation films and trailers that make you want to see the film, I should’ve mentioned earlier our own Steve Hatton’s Into the Wind.

http://www.intothewind.co.uk/#

Recommended.

I heard a rumour that Dark Blue World cost less to produce than the post film party and razmataz of Pearl Harbor:confused:

Somewhere in the region of $10million at the time.

I don’t know if any of you have seen this, but I think it’s well worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcHNjzD18to

“Wings of Honneamise (sp?)” is another anime you might enjoy. I haven´t seen it in years, so I´d have a look on IMDB first, to see what they say. Also features Shinden style fighters.

I heard a rumour that Dark Blue World cost less to produce than the post film party and razmataz of Pearl Harbor:confused:

All things are relative – the train strafing sequence in Dark Blue World cost more than the director’s previous film (Kolya) cost in its entirety! That’s another good example of subtle use of CGI – the real pyrotechnics in the explosion were supplemented by CGI (I wouldn’t have known) and they also did things like add spent cartridge cases falling from the aircraft when guns were firing, that sort of thing.

I heard a rumour that Dark Blue World cost less to produce than the post film party and razmataz of Pearl Harbor:confused:

BTW CGI is not the only way to get a sky full of B-17s – digital compositing would be as good or probably better. Look at e.g. Kingdom of Heaven, there was one real siege tower built, the others were ‘cut and pasted’ versions of the same one. Or model work. Or a bit of both.

Or Dark Blue World, where the two real Spitfires were composited into the shots of the airfield, for instance. Beautifully done – and on a tiny budget, too.

What are the odds, I just watched that about a month ago. Odd little film isn´t it? I think I need to watch it again, to see if I enjoyed it or not. Good flying though.

Another vaguely flying related anime that I watched was “The place promised in our early days”. That was very strange and I couldn´t even tell the characters apart. I´d avoid.

Yes, I was definitely left with a sense of needing to see it again, but I often get that with Japanese films. I did enjoy the flying, and the sense of wistfulness that hung over the story was well expressed, in a restrained kind of way. I dare say there are many many films about the young people who have to fight wars not of their making, and who don’t get to live in the world they are fighting for, but I thought it was done with great economy – a bit of a rarity in films these days IMO! Not bad for £1.99 from Forbidden Planet anyway.

I’ll steer clear of the other one then.

I’ve just seen ‘The Sky Crawlers’,

What are the odds, I just watched that about a month ago. Odd little film isn´t it? I think I need to watch it again, to see if I enjoyed it or not. Good flying though.

Another vaguely flying related anime that I watched was “The place promised in our early days”. That was very strange and I couldn´t even tell the characters apart. I´d avoid.

It´ll get there eventually.:)

Let’s hope so. Spielberg had the sense (or found it necessary) to put most of his key dinosaur CGI scenes in poor light, rain, lightning etc, all mitigating to an extent the shortcomings of the CGI. I think many filmmakers could still learn from this. When it comes to creating extensive effects sequences using CGI, it would be well to consider Geoff Goldblum/Dr Malcolm’s words – “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

BTW, perhaps it’s easier to be impressed if you are watching a film that you know is animated from beginning to end. I’ve just seen ‘The Sky Crawlers’, a Japanese animation about a fictitious war in a world similar to ours, fought with highly developed piston-engined aircraft (themselves all fictional but clearly inspired by e.g. Northrop flying wings, Kyushu Shinden canards, that sort of thing). I found the flying sequences very impressive and the dynamics pretty good. As it was an animated film, the lack of real aircraft didn’t bother me in the slightest, and I was taken by the almost photo-real nature of the aircraft. Maybe I just have double standards. Anyway, I can recommend The Sky Crawlers, it’s a thought-provoking little piece.

All this from just a couple of minutes of trailer.

One problem I have experienced with films such as Flyboys seems to be that in order that the CGI sequences don’t look out of place, the sequences with real aircraft or models are dressed up to resemble the animation. The physics may be right in that respect, but the ‘texture’ still appears animated so it’s hard to tell what’s real an what isn’t – and not in a good way. Much of the Red Tails trailer looks this way to me. There may be real aircraft in there, but as far as I can see they all look like computer models.

I´d agree with all that. A friend commented that all of the Red Tails trailer looked animated – not only the flying parts, but the briefing room too. He has a point. One wonders if this was a deliberate “look” for the film, or something that was done to paper over the cracks? I wonder how much was green screened? To be sure, there is still a long way to go before CGI looks perfect, but even the relatively recent Jurassic Park dinosaurs now look a crude compared to say Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It´ll get there eventually.:)

Clearly it works best when combined with real aircraft. The comparison I was making however was with models on strings, or indeed any other special effect that you care to name. Real aircraft give you a perfect baseline of what looks real on film (because it is real) on which you can base your models.

And as bad as CGI can be, it is invariably less noticeable and risible than models on strings. To pick specific examples, it is the only remotely realistic way to put a hundred B-17s on the cinema screen. It is the only way to “blow up” an aircraft that doesn´t look utterly unconvincing. If it isn´t the best or only way to do these kinds of things, then I´m all ears to hear what is?

One problem I have experienced with films such as Flyboys seems to be that in order that the CGI sequences don’t look out of place, the sequences with real aircraft or models are dressed up to resemble the animation. The physics may be right in that respect, but the ‘texture’ still appears animated so it’s hard to tell what’s real an what isn’t – and not in a good way. Much of the Red Tails trailer looks this way to me. There may be real aircraft in there, but as far as I can see they all look like computer models.

BTW CGI is not the only way to get a sky full of B-17s – digital compositing would be as good or probably better. Look at e.g. Kingdom of Heaven, there was one real siege tower built, the others were ‘cut and pasted’ versions of the same one. Or model work. Or a bit of both.

There are also still occasions where real aircraft and pilots flying offer a better result, as film-makers such as Jackson and even Lucas have demonstrated by their use of real aircraft in recent films and Red Tails.

Clearly it works best when combined with real aircraft. The comparison I was making however was with models on strings, or indeed any other special effect that you care to name. Real aircraft give you a perfect baseline of what looks real on film (because it is real) on which you can base your models.

It is therefore neither usually the ‘best’ nor the ‘only’ way to make aviation or action films. It is a special effect that can be used (in conjunction with other effects) well, or badly. Defend away, but when it’s so often so noticeable and so risible, you’re on a hiding to nothing.

And as bad as CGI can be, it is invariably less noticeable and risible than models on strings. To pick specific examples, it is the only remotely realistic way to put a hundred B-17s on the cinema screen. It is the only way to “blow up” an aircraft that doesn´t look utterly unconvincing. If it isn´t the best or only way to do these kinds of things, then I´m all ears to hear what is?

It goes without saying (or so I would have thought, until I encountered this thread) that it can be used well or badly, just like any other technique.

However I certainly agree it can be done well – Jackson’s team’s CGI in the Australian War Memorial’s film Over the Front is overall, good, and notably not overdone as most major release moves CGI is.

So we do agree – it can be very good, or very bad.

nor am I changing what I’ve defended, as you, in your previous post state you’ve done.

What utter nonsense. I´ve only ever said I hoped it´d be a good film. And it is permissible to discuss more than one idea on a thread isn´t it?

Enough. It’s been an interesting discussion, and I thank all that have contributed, not just James D, but I think I’ll agree just to differ.

Our opinions don´t even differ as much as you might think.

In my recent posts, I´ve simply been defending CGI, since the thread appeared to have moved into more general discussion of war/flying films.

That wasn’t evident.

I believe that it is the best and only way to do these kinds of films these days.

CGI may usually be the most cost effective method, but as someone interested in aviation, rather than computers, it is evident it usually comes a poor second to real flying. There are also still occasions where real aircraft and pilots flying offer a better result, as film-makers such as Jackson and even Lucas have demonstrated by their use of real aircraft in recent films and Red Tails. Not to mention we go back to the overcrank issue which is evident in many CGI supported aviation (and ‘technical’) films. So, no, I think that view, too, is naive. CGI can be good, but it is often inappropriately used giving a false impression of the physical world we live in and our non-sci-fi entertainments need for suspension of disbelief. It is therefore neither usually the ‘best’ nor the ‘only’ way to make aviation or action films. It is a special effect that can be used (in conjunction with other effects) well, or badly. Defend away, but when it’s so often so noticeable and so risible, you’re on a hiding to nothing.

However I certainly agree it can be done well – Jackson’s team’s CGI in the Australian War Memorial’s film Over the Front is overall, good, and notably not overdone as most major release moves CGI is.

…suddenly started talking about the qualities of the film as a whole, or aviation films in general.

I’ve been supporting the main idea with those concepts from the start of the discussion as a matter of fact.

I´ve said already that I suspect Red Tails may not be the greatest movie ever made. It´s not my job to defend it, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but I´m happy enough to reserve judgement.

It’s not even going to be a mildly good move, as is very evident from the trailers. If you are happy to hand over cash because something ‘might be OK’ after a crap advert, go right ahead.

As to your opening ‘LOL’ :rolleyes: No, again. A read of the thread shows, I’ve just advanced and supported a consistent idea and illustrated it – I’ve not changed ground, nor am I changing what I’ve defended, as you, in your previous post state you’ve done.

Enough. It’s been an interesting discussion, and I thank all that have contributed, not just James D, but I think I’ll agree just to differ.

Regards,

Certainly the selective quoting of my post doesn’t actually compromise the view or support yours, much as you might like to cherry-pick.

LOL…thats rich! Your own medicine?;)

In my recent posts, I´ve simply been defending CGI, since the thread appeared to have moved into more general discussion of war/flying films. I believe that it is the best and only way to do these kinds of films these days. Its not perfect by any means, but I think it´s the best way available at present. We were specifically discussing CGI versus models on strings, just a couple of posts back, were we not? But unfortunately, you promptly decided (yet again!) to move the goalposts and suddenly started talking about the qualities of the film as a whole, or aviation films in general. It renders meaningful discussion impossible if you can´t stick to the topic in hand.

I´ve said already that I suspect Red Tails may not be the greatest movie ever made. It´s not my job to defend it, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but I´m happy enough to reserve judgement.

A film is different things to different audiences.
It’s picking the best from all the types to make the best for a good audience without pandering to the lowest common denominator.
You need to mix realistic well researched cgi [which todays audiences have grown up with] with everything a non aviation buff would like to see as well.
Hard to do but not really impossible given the amount of expertise that can be called on in this ay and age,just whether there is a will to do it.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I thought Cavalcanti’s Went The Day Well is still one of the finest films I’ve ever seen or will ever see.

A Matter of Life and Death was pretty damned good too!

Pearl harbor is ok if, and only if, you accept that it has nothing to do with the actual events.

Regards,

kev35

Either my reading or your writing.;)

Hm. Or maybe you just don’t like to accept it. Certainly the selective quoting of my post doesn’t actually compromise the view or support yours, much as you might like to cherry-pick.

LOL! This completely contradicts what you wrote directly above it. Flaws are OK in films you happen to like seems to be the gist of this. Fair enough. If it´s an otherwise good film, one can forgive it a lot.

No, actually, it does not. I’ve been quite careful to quantify and provide examples, and on a careful re-reading it’s clear enough if you’re interested in the concepts put forward. It’s not about an a priori view, but evaluating the overall result.

But in one short sentence, a good film is one where the flaws are few and the script, story and (lastly) technical aspects are good overall. A bad film is one where the script is poor, the story compromised and the technical aspects more notable for their (over)use than their achievement.

You’re welcome to Red Tails and the defence of the (IMHO) indefensible. There’s been much of interest come out of this thread, so I think it’s been worthwhile, but there comes a point…

Regards,