Author Topic: Pearl Harbor  (Read 1771 times)

funked

  • Guest
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2001, 03:18:00 AM »
Good points Hangtime, but I still feel there were too many departures from the truth in that film.  With the money they spent, there is no excuse for getting the facts wrong.  That means the falsehoods were probably intentional.  I don't feel that it is neccesary to embellish war stories to make them exciting.  Just do your research and show all the crazy things that happened to individuals - a la Cornelius Ryan.  But I guess if their market is people who don't read, then the approach of these filmmakers makes sense.  

Offline Gargoyle

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »
Saw it, hated it.  Great fx and dogfighting scenes, but all of the extra padding and packaging made for a butt-number.

Now I don't normally yearn for violence and blood in movies, but c'mon this is a war movie.  The A-Team "fall down when bullets strike near" violence and lack of any blood or maiming really dispelled any immersion or impact of the battle scenes.  It felt like I was watching a made-for-tv movie.  The filmakers would have you believe that the only wounds suffered when your ships get bombed is an urgent need to shower the grease and grime off yourself.  The only genuine blood was from a severed neck artery that a nurse had to plug with her finger, and she only got a drop or two on her whites?

Ugh, and the Dawson's Creek love story this garbage was wrapped in...terrible.  Women in swimsuits writing love letters on a beach at sundown?  Drek drek drek.

And the Cuba Gooding subplot was terribly done, this is something that deserves its own movie, not something that gets cookie-cuttered on top of everything else.  Did anyone else notice how artificial and misplaced the narrative about him at the end was?  It came across as "Oh yeah, politically correct tribute afterthought to show that even though we riduculed speech impediments we are genuinely enlightened and sensitive to the deeds of minorities."

Ick

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2001, 09:48:00 AM »
 I thought the Doolittle raid planes separated early and performed bombing raids as single units in widely separated target areas, not as a formation.

 miko

Offline Wrek

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2001, 10:03:00 AM »
Haven't seen the movie, but I do know they used the USS Lexington for some of the carrier scenes. It's down in Corpus Christi, Texas. www.usslexington.com/  

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2001, 10:14:00 AM »
   
Quote
Originally posted by miko2d:
I thought the Doolittle raid planes separated early and performed bombing raids as single units in widely separated target areas, not as a formation.

 miko

Correct, and, they were not in constant contact with US ground communication during the actual bombing run as portrayed in the movie.  There was no fire fight after a crash, nor a strafing B25 to push the Japanese back, but hey, this was a movie, not a documentary.  

Oh, thought I might add that Gen.Doolittle is probably doing flip flops in his coffin after discovering that of all people protraying the Doolittle character, they chose Alec Baldwin...thought he was going to move out of the country?  
(For you on the other side of the fence, imagine Rush Limbaugh portraying your fav. WW2 hero...nuff said!)

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-29-2001).]

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2001, 10:31:00 AM »
I give a thumbs up for the movie. I love history and I read alot. I also enjoy documentaries on the History channel..etc. But you gotta admit they did well in puitiing the movie together, it was quite entertaining. If you go in the theatre-- strictly to be entertained-- in that mindset ytou will get what you want.

Hang, I agree completely. I am kind of a softie too when it comes to patriotic memories. I give up a few tears annually. Being a career Military person will do this to some people I guess. My wife knows me, and lets me have it when I pick at her about her crying at the love scenes.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2001, 10:35:00 AM »
Hang, Ammo, we are of the same breed...Private Ryan I shed em like crazy, and my father sitting beside me, did too, he's not known for tears, he was shedding them watching that movie.

Pearl Harbor, only during the panning above the battleships all ablaze with men in the water, got sweltered up on that shot, but, not nearly as much as SPR.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-29-2001).]

Offline Steven

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2001, 10:45:00 AM »
I've tried to refrain from posting on this topic but can't any longer...

I can't believe the number of messages about this movie and how these messages actually come across to me as angry and upset at how the movie was done.  It seems people really do have to nitpick to find value and self-esteem in their own life.  We all know what bullets do to flesh and it really isn't *necessary* to include chunks of blood and meat flying across the screen to make this an accurate movie.  This actually makes me feel more comfortable should I choose to take my 4-yr old son or 6-yr old daughter to see the movie.  Go rent Faces Of Death if that is what you need.  Hollywood generally tends to over-do the blood and body parts flying when hit with a bullet anyway.  Who here has seen a soldier hit in real life?  As for using a few more modern destroyers to bomb in the movie as well as some other things is just a matter of choice and substitutes/replicates well that point.  If the budget allowed, I'm sure the movie makers would have prefered to have the shipyards create anew all these ships, but that is not feasible and so choices have to be made.  I saw a documentary on Tora, Tora, Tora and it cost $30,000 per plane to fix those trainers up to look more like Zeros and that movie was released in 1970.  The setting isn't perfect because it is 60 years later, but I think they made some good choices for what they had to do.  Heck, with the choices made it's still the most expensive movie to create to date, I believe.  This movie is not a documentary.  Documentaries do not bring the audience to view that entertaining love-stories and action movies bring.  I'm very happy that someone decided to make a love-story set in the period of the Pearl Harbor attack and then attempted to summarize and portray those events that happened.  My wife hadn't a clue about Pearl Harbor before the movie and can care less of my interest in military aviation and aircraft these many years.  After seeing the movie and talking with my wife, she has an immense greater understanding of what happened and I'm very much shocked about how little or how wrong those things she used to think about the war.  So she heard the paraphrasing of "awaken a sleeping giant", she understands the gist of it.  The movie condenses events of a few months...no, actually YEARS into 3 hours.  We saw the movie Saturday morning and to my delight, my wife actually set the VCR to record the History Channel while we were out Sunday with family so that she can learn further of the attack.  <Bells ring>...the movie is a success!!  The movie got across the important points and generated interest for my wife to investigate further into the attack.  I'm sorry, this movie was not made for the Pearl Harbor and WW2 experts (all seven of you out there), but it will convey very well events during the attack to the masses.  C'mon people, get down off your horse.  The general viewer doe not need to know that a x-class destroyer had such-n-such guns, but it is nice to know that some people will understand that 1. Britain was in war before the US  (surprising how many people do not understand the time-line of the war)  2. US was isolationist but govt was sending some ships to UK and we had volunteers in UK and China  3. US was asleep at the wheel  4. Japan felt a need to attack the US due to steel and oil embargos  5. attack took place even though several red-flags if heeded could've prepared us and lessened the loss  6. LOTS died.  7. Message to commander at Pearl arrived during the attack as well as msg from the Japanese embassy.  8. Flyers did make it into the air  9.  3rd wave didn't occur  10.  Even though the US was down and looked out we had the fighting spirit to put up a token raid against Japan.   11...and more.  

<shoots your horses and makes you walk at the level of the rest of us>


Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2001, 01:48:00 PM »
Stevie the guys who really got starafed in the real PH attack were often decapitated, cut in half, dismemberd, disemboweled and apparently the strafed area streets san red with blood.

The point of our concern is not a stupid viscious blood-lust to see gore and flying body parts, it is the obvious cheapening and "clean up" to earn the movie a PG13 rating so it can maximize profits from the young teenage male "demographic". SPR took itself seriously and pretty much showed what 20mm HE shells do to human bodies and thus earned an R rating and accepted a loss in profits to remain true to realism and respect for the horros of war.

PH on the other hand just sees the Dec.7 attack as a convenient background to:

A. A terrible, pointless, formulaic and soap-opera like love triangle story. (for idiot female demographic)
 
B. A terrible Bay/Bruckheimer stupid action, blow stuff up movie. (for idiot male demographic)

There is no soul to this movie, no feeling, no respect, no honesty. It is simply a contrived piece of toejam meant to leach modern day idiot Americans' money out of the suffering of thousands of real Americans on that day.

READ THIS PART!

If you dont belive me as to how little respect and how not seriously Bay/Bruckheimer took this movie just look for a little cameo in the movie done by none other than a computer inserted Bruce Willis.

Yep there is a scene during the hospital attack where Bay inserted the character JOHN MCLAIN of the DIE HARD action movie series, in the backround walking by.
This is not a joke JOHN MCLAIN of the action movies DIE HARD is in PH. This is simply so stupid, cheap, pointless, cheap, horrible, god diddlying awful, disrespectful of the subject, its simply unbelivable.

What PH is, all PH is is a calculated effort by Bay/Bruckheimer to exploit the deaths of 3000 Americans and the idiocy of the US public. The premise of this movie is to take the love story, "cute guys" and epic scale of Titanic to draw in the teenage girls, then take the idiotic blow stuff up and idiotic "braveness" and pseudo patriotism of Armageddon to draw in the idiot teenage male.

Thats why this is a bad movie, far beyond the historical travesty and disrepectul nature PH is simply a poorly done film. Its obviously an overly contrived, cynical, souless, directionless monstrosity. Its a giant advertizing campaign rolled into an awful overlong 3 hour piece of toejam not worth the film stock it was shot on.

Its simply awful and I diddlying hate it.

The good news is that it apperently missed estimates for the for day weekend falling well short of Disney's projected 90 million plus.  There is some hope after all....

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2001, 01:57:00 PM »
Wow Grun, I'm speechless, I went into that movie with "Its entertainment"...but after reading your post, I can't help to admit that I agree with quite a few of your points withint that post.

BTW, who's John McCain and whats die hard? (Ripsnort << Who spends VERY LITTLE time in front of a movie screen, let alone television, since life is too short to piss away time doing THAT!)

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18769
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2001, 02:16:00 PM »
Opinions are like a-holes. We all have them. For any of you to take anothers as gospel is laughable. What are you trying to do, save your $5 if so and so said it stunk or spend it if so and so said it was good??

Get off your wallet, off the computer, out of the house and go see it for yourself.

As someone above mentioned, if it makes our youth understand another generations sacrifice, it served it's cause. And remember, it's just a movie as AH is just a game.

Eagler
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2001, 02:19:00 PM »
Die Hard was a series of 3 action movies where the main character "John McLain"  not like Sen. MCain, battles various terrorists in confinded spaces like an LA office tower, Chicago Airport, or open areas as New York in #3. Lots of big firey explosion, big macho type charecters, impossible MG bullet dodging gunfights, etc, etc.

Basically these are good well done action movies and are good fun movies overall. But certainly nothing that should be inserted into PH in any way.

Apperently PH diector Michael Bay and Bruce Willis are good buddies after doing Armageddon together and Bay thought is would be clever to put the John Mclain charecter into PH. Whatever his reasoning it clealy betrays Bay/Buckheimers lack of respect and seriousness towards the subject.

 

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2001, 02:24:00 PM »
Eagler seeing PH will not make anyone feel anything for the war, especially not those who dont feel/know anything about it before hand. Its symply too styleized, contrived conceithed and cynical to touch anyone on a real level. Its simply a giant poorly done action flick all wraped up in a big US flag. It shames the real PH attack to no end, by cheapenig it.

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2001, 03:25:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Eagler seeing PH will not make anyone feel anything for the war, especially not those who dont feel/know anything about it before hand. Its symply too styleized, contrived conceithed and cynical to touch anyone on a real level. Its simply a giant poorly done action flick all wraped up in a big US flag. It shames the real PH attack to no end, by cheapenig it.

Ok, you HATE the movie.  Guess what, you're still WRONG!  Read what you wrote.  You said it won't make ANYONE feel ANYTHING for the war.  Then why were there tears in my eyes when the people were trapped in the ships?  According to you, I couldn't be feeling anything, so it must have been some dust from the popcorn, huh???  PLEASE!!!  You don't like the movie, that's fine.  The movie is a money making machine, well of course, it's a major motion picture, not meant as a documentary.  Same thing with Titanic.  I learned something from that movie too.  I knew the ship sank, but I didn't know they locked people in steerage, e.g.

As for the graphic violence, I prefer the "dumbed down, stylized" violence over SPR and Braveheart.  I can imagine what a 20mm shell or a bastard sword does to someone; I don't need or really -want- to see it!  I won't watch SPR again because of the gore.  I know which parts of Braveheart to skip through, because I don't want to see it.  I -will- watch PH again, because it isn't gorey.

Normally, I would never flat out tell someone they are wrong, but you are in this case.  -I- took something away from that movie and -I- felt something for the people who fought in WWII from watching that movie.  Yesterday I spent most of my time online reading about the war in the Pacific solely because I watched PH on Saturday.  Your first two sentences that I quoted above are nothing more than assumptions, seemingly based solely on your hate and disgust for the movie.  Why don't you go ask people who lived through Pearl Harbor (or even those who were alive at the time) if THEY feel the movie cheapened and/or shamed the reality of it.  I'd be surprised if more than a few felt the same as you.

Please don't take this too personally, but when you said it didn't make anyone feel anything, well, I'm included in "anyone", and it bothered me that you're basically saying what I will feel (more to the point what I felt) after seeing this movie.  You'll still be getting check 6 calls from me!!!  
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Steven

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
Pearl Harbor
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2001, 05:12:00 PM »
I thought I saw Bruce Willis in there.  I guess I wasn't imagining it.  I almost said to my wife "Isn't that Bruce Willis" but didn't realize it was his Die Hard character.

Grunie, I still disagree whole-heartedly with you.  Please do not test this movie against your typical historical documentary or even book of which it is not.  This is a movie... a love story set during the events of Pearl Harbor and never touted to be anything more.  This will not replace or be tantamount to "At Dawn We Slept" and other more serious texts.  I have some knowledge of the events and in my opinion the movie represents them well and gets the point across very well.  But what amazes me is that it appears a lot of people are trashing this movie because it is NOT the ultimate documentary on the events...something it was never meant to be.  I personally find it to be a great tribute to the men and women who survived that time and am glad of all the Pearl Harbor interest the movie has generated the past few weeks.  In my opinion, the worst thing that can happen is that Pearl Harbor is forgotten.  

I found lots of soul, feeling, respect and honesty with the movie.  Also, I've seen first hand how this movie affected someone who had *NO* knowledge whatsoever on the subject and then I watched how she then pursued a further understanding of Pearl Harbor and actually became a bit enraged about the whole attack.  I'm hoping this won't only happen to my wife.  And yeah, it's a love-story with some handsome stars...but I was very pleased to look around the theater and see some young girls attend the movie which if a dry-documentary they most likely otherwise would not attend and I bet they learned a thing or two.  I'm hoping this movie will be very popular because many people are very ignorant about our history and with a little sugar this movie gets the medicine down.  I'm hoping that the next generation remembers and now understands Pearl Harbor and does not let our armed forces slip to a lack of readiness.

I would love to hear about this "historical travesty" in greater detail.  It's simply not fair to leave it at that.

<<<...seeing PH will not make anyone feel anything for the war, especially not those who dont feel/know anything about it before hand.>>
How dare you say such things. I heretofore announce that Grunnie does not speak for me.  I'm sorry, but you cannot speak for everyone.  The movie made me feel... the movie made my wife feel...you are wrong.

To each his own but be careful what you are trying to compare this movie to.

[This message has been edited by Steven (edited 05-29-2001).]