RED TAILS... How was it!?

I had heard on the radio a little about the movie. I was on a 15 min break, not much time. The people that they had based each of the characters, really were like how they were portrayed in the movie, that the writer, Ridley Scott, wanted that kept in, and that was sort of what helped to give the John Wayne feel. It's not that it's not a real feel, it's that it's sort of unexpected to keep the behavioral aspects of a person into the movie.

Ironically, because they were stateside for so long, 'cause no twit wanted to give them anything to do, they did nothing but train. So, when they hit Italy, they were one of if not the best trained group in the Allies, besting a great deal of the white men. It's not that they were naturally good, it's that they had what could almost be considered overkill in training. Okay, so not overkill in training, no such thing in a war.

I consider myself a bit of a student of history, trying to see what should be seen, and beyond that. I'm also an Aeronautical Engineering major. So, if I do go see it, which I'm hoping to, I know I'll nitpick the aircraft stuff to death. :rolleyes Any historical inaccuracies I tend to glance over. If I'm entertained enough, I'll even gloss over the aircraft stuff too.
 
Cessna Driver, I totally agree. The life of the fighter pilots during the war was in many aspects equaly gritty and horrifying as the life of the ground troops. I also feel that they deserve to have their story told correctly and without the Hollywood glory filter added. A dream come true for me would be a remake of Battle of Brittain. Portraid just as it was in similar style and approach as Spielberg did on Ryan, Brothers and the Pacific.

For Tails though I was really looking forward to it for not being that kind of a film. I've really been missing the kind of adventure war films I saw as a kid and figured that Lucas could probably pull such a story off in a rather entertaining way.

Cheers,
Steve
 
CessnaDriver said:
I just want to wail sometimes as there could be such a great realistic film made about fighter pilot's exploits and sacrifices.

The series Dogfights really got into the nuts and bolts of a knife fight in the sky and some stranger then fiction scenarios that actually happened.

"A Fighter Pilot's Story" documentary on PBS years ago was another.
Quentin Aanenson was terrified at burning to death as he had seen so many die that way.
His P-47 was on fire badly, the canopy jammed shut. He was going to burn to death, and he swore he would not die that way, so he chose to end it quick by his own hand by diving directly into the ground. Well the flames extinquished in that dive, now he was going from a suicide dive to trying to recover in time before hitting the ground, which he did barely.
He learned not to bother to learn other new pilot's names or be friendly. They weren't going to be around long. He wrote only happy letters home, so as not to upset his wife and family. And he was also a forward air controller, so he learned the ground truth as well.



Maybe someday a modern film maker will nail it.
Click to expand...


I don't blame you. I've thought that the story of tankers or the Desert Rats would make a cool tale too if done realistically.

But then, I tend to think that real life history doesn't need a ton of embellishment to be entertaining and interesting.
 
DuneMuadDib said:
What does the producer and director's intention have to do with anything? Indy IV was intended as a 50's B-movie alien flick being set in the 50's and all, in the same vein as the ones set in the 30's played like 30's era adventure pulp. That didn't stop people from hating the crap out of Indy IV's "genre difference" for lack of a better way to describe it.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it if you decide to hate something because you won't take it on its own terms. If the movie is crap (which admittedly it may be, I think maybe one person in the thread has seen it?) then it's crap on it's own terms. It's just not automatically crap because it's not the kind of movie you think you wanted. It's like say, in another universe, if Indy 4 had been good, hating it because it of the genre difference. That's generally not what happened though - the genre difference was just an easy topic to coalece around for people unhappy with the quality of the final result. If the thing had been solid in any way the stylized nature of the storytelling wouldn't have been an issue.

Arguing that filmakers should only provide what the audience currently expects would logically mean that some of our favorite films 'round these parts would never have been made. It strikes me actually that releasing this kind of naive, heroic movie is not too far removed from releasing Star Wars amid the grim, humourless films of the '70s. You have the same archetypes in place of characters, a naive style and tone, and a clear line through the story without too many unexpected twists. It was refreshing, and...fun. The difference this time (and again, I have no idea if the film sucks) may be down to the fact that audiences are too used to massive spectacle right now for this to play as refreshing.
 
I'll go see it and I'm 95% sure that I will like it.

Now if only I could get a modern Flying Tigers or God is my Co Pilot movie to be made...
 
The BDK said:
I'll go see it and I'm 95% sure that I will like it.

Now if only I could get a modern Flying Tigers or God is my Co Pilot movie to be made...
Click to expand...

I had read that John Woo had a Flying Tigers film planned.
Sadly I also read Tom Cruise was thinking of doing one as well.
Gag! Hopefully Woo beats him to the punch.
 
terryr said:
Why didn't they advertise it like that? I'd be more interested in that rather than the 'kewl dudes' in the commercials, which totally turned me off.
Someone had no faith in their own picture.
Click to expand...


Exactly, it IS a WWI movie, not a Modern movie set in WWI, they got the look and feel of the time down. The attack runs on the Observation Blimps...OMFG you needed balls of steel to do that.
 
0neiros said:
Exactly, it IS a WWI movie, not a Modern movie set in WWI, they got the look and feel of the time down. The attack runs on the Observation Blimps...OMFG you needed balls of steel to do that.
Click to expand...

This is World War II. Mustangs were way too advanced to be a WWI aircraft.
And before WWII ever happened, WWI was commonly known as The Great War to End all Wars.
 
BAK55 said:
This is World War II. Mustangs were way too advanced to be a WWI aircraft.
And before WWII ever happened, WWI was commonly known as The Great War to End all Wars.
Click to expand...

I think he was talking about the movie "flyboys."

In any case, I'm going to try and hit the theater either today or tomorrow, premiere style :cool
 
I haven't seen it, but the previews don't look promising.

Looks Hollywood and the CGI looks bad. I'm a WWII aviation fan and it looks like he wants the planes to look like Star Wars ships as another poster said.

Feel like I've seen the story again and again. Nothing new.
 
I wonder if the audience's tastes have changed when it comes to "fun" war movies. It's interesting that even the folks who lived through WWII could enjoy bubblegum versions of the war despite knowing the harsh realities all too well. Are we (meaning today's audience) less able to compartmentalize such things and just have fun? Are we just stuck up? :lol

Another factor, perhaps, is that "we" expect a tale of blacks who showed heroism despite segregation and prejudice to be heavy and Important with a capital "I". Again, just as someone quoted in that NYT article about Lucas said, why can't blacks have "Hollywood" style John Wayne war heroes too? If they can't, is it just because of what I addressed in my first paragraph, and they're just SOL and the time for such films has passed?

(I do not have an answer)
 
The Rock-a-who said:
For me, when I see "based on a true story" I know there will be historical innacuracies <sp> so I don't quite nit-pick, depending on the historical fact (i.e. if the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor ["Forget it, he's rolling."] instead of the Japanese, then yes, I'll complain - but if it's something like 'those types of jackets weren;'t available until 1944 and this was in 1943' I'm more forgiving.

My basic premise for movies is entertainment. If I'm entertained, I'm happy. I'm SO looking forward to Red Tails because I love war movies focusing on aviation. So, I'm hoping to be pleased with this and enjoy it for what it is.
Click to expand...
Bingo. It's a movie, not a documentary. Of course, historical documentaries are only as good as the information available at the time they were produced, and history is being re-written all the time, so...

On the other hand, if you're a filmmaker with George Lucas' budget and you're making a period movie based on recorded historical events and have to create the sets, wardrobe, hardware, vehicles, etc., from scratch, doesn't it take only slightly more effort to get it right as it does to get it wrong?
 
Wife and I just came back from seeing this, cgi dogfights were nice and thats about it. The acting was stale, the feel of the movie felt like a flatline with no heartbeat. No buildup no resolution etc. Came out of the theatre and there quite a few people just giving it two thumbs down as well. Disappointing to say in the least. (n)thumbsdown
 
I was looking forward to seeing it, but if everyone says it's not that great I'll wait until it's on cable. I didn't like the other movie (the Laurence Fishburne one) because it had hokey dialogue. Like one real pilot said (paraphrasing) "We knew each other, why would we say Red 1 to Red 2? You'd say 'Hey Joe watch your six!'". You see that in a lot of old WW2 movies where they say things like "Pilot to tailgunner" or "Pilot to bombardier". It just bugs me I guess.
 
I've been watching the audience approval ratings drop on Rotten Tomatoes. Yesterday it was 80 something now it's down to mid 70s. Give it a week and the audience ratings should match pretty close to the critics ratings.

That sucks - I have been wanting to see this since I heard the project was underway.
 
Treadwell said:
Again, just as someone quoted in that NYT article about Lucas said, why can't blacks have "Hollywood" style John Wayne war heroes too?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Reminds me, tangentially, of a Noel Clarke interview I heard. He said that because of the colour of his skin, producers seemed to want to direct "street" movies about "urban youth", when he felt that British cinema needs to make more entertainment style, Hollywood-esque movies.

It's a big discussion and there's obviously a lot going on there, but it is an interesting reversal.
 
This thread is more than 8 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

TheVCCco
1979 Alien - MUTHUR was tiny!
Replies
1
Views
382
joberg
joberg
C
Oppenheimer was boring
2
Replies
24
Views
2,533
JediMichael
JediMichael
Captain Dunsel
Was “Tropic Thunder” The Last True Comedy??
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2,233
Riceball
Riceball
OzReturner
Let it Snow- Die Hard's End Credits
Replies
14
Views
869
Roobyoo
Roobyoo
Apollo
41 years ago today, E.T. was released……
2
Replies
20
Views
977
CessnaDriver
CessnaDriver
Back
Top