unfortunately they do imply that it was factual by saying based on factual events and then at the ending of it stating certain facts found in the historical record. so they im[ly that they are being historically accurate.
i understand the facination of it all from your little guys point of view, but the unfortunate side is that he will learn the history from a false perspective and that is a sad out come for him.
didnt the real men of the redtails squardon earn the honors of having thier history told with truth and integrity? would a touch of reality have made the explosions any less than what they showed or made the story line boring? those men lived and died and in a valiant manner, if we allow the hollywooders to tell the story in a less than truthful manner, when it is very possible for them to do so, then isnt that insulting those real men and the truth of their story?
if it was a fake squad and a fake enviroment that was potrayed with fake events and it was a complete piece of historical fiction then that is one thing, (as most of the old war flicks) but this movie uses real events, people, places and squads to tell a complete fabrication.....it just bothers me thats all.
For what it's worth, the "Red Tail Project" based near where I live had a big gathering for the premiere. Matthew and I support that particular P51C and what they do with their traveling education program as I have a long history with that bird, and obviously I'm dad to a little Red Tail pilot. There were also surviving Red Tail pilots involved.
I think the key thing to remember here is no one movie, book, TV show etc is going to tell the whole story. Any history buff worth their while always gets more sources. I would never let Matthew stop with the movie as his only source of the story. What would I expect a kid to get from the movie? That there was a group of black fighter pilots that were segregated from white pilots during WW2 that eventually proved their worth as bomber escorts. It's up to me to make sure he learns the rest of the story if he wants to.
As a little kid in the 60s I got my start on this WW2 aviation obsession due to one TV show. "12 O'Clock High". Now if I'd stopped learning after seeing that show, my knowledge would be that the 918th BG commanded by Colonel Gallagher and his top turret gunner "Sandy" won WW2 in the air. I'd also believe that every B17 ever made was painted OD/Gray and had a triangle A on the tail. Thankfully my parents, seeing the interest, made sure I knew where the history section was in the library and made sure I got there. I also found it at my grade school and devoured all I could find.
It's the reason I keep using "Flying Tigers" with John Wayne as my comparison. I used to watch all those movies as as kid. Again if I'd stopped with that, I'd have a very skewed view of history. Instead each opened the door to more questions, and my desire to learn was encouraged by my parents and teachers.
My oldest son was Matthew's age when Top Gun came out. He referred to it as "Top Gug" as he was so little. But it had big planes and pilots and it hooked him. His imagination went wild building cardboard cockpits and begging to get to try and put together model kits of mine that were far beyond his years. He'd sit and do his absolute best to make the parts fit. Was Top Gun history? Nope. About all that fit was that there is was a Fighter Weapons School at Miramar called Top Gun. Again it was up to me to feed the interest. It wasn't the movies job to do anything but entertain.
It's funny that I'm defending the movie as I really ripped it early on for all the same reasons you gents are. It just took me getting reminded of "12 O' Clock High" from my childhood, "Top Gun" from my oldest son's childhood and then thinking about my littlest guy's view to get me to relax and see it for what the movie is.
