Mighty Eighth (2014 Movie) Trailer

[mr_lits]

Full of inaccuracies....certainly.

Chock with CGI..... yup.

Watchable none the less.....hell yeah.

 

Though I am really glad to hear this is not the Hank/Speilberg mini series. They really have taken the time to iron out the details in the last sets of films, it would be a shame to see so many inaccuracies in something they produced.

[445th Bomb Group]

My Internet connection is too slow to view the clip, could someone give me a quick summary of the story in the movie? Is an 8th AF mission that actually took place being depicted?

[Sabrejet]

My Internet connection is too slow to view the clip, could someone give me a quick summary of the story in the movie? Is an 8th AF mission that actually took place being depicted?

 

Allegedly! Don't worry...you're not missing much!

[cutiger83]

I just don’t understand why people on here complain that certain war movies are not being produced. Then when movies are produced, they complain about every minute detail in the movie. EVERY movie of every type that has ever been produced has inaccuracies. That is why it is called a MOVIE NOT a DOCUMENTARY!

 

Every haunted movie has someone who opens the door to see what is behind it.

Every Bruce Willis movie has him being blown to pieces yet he survives to the end.

Every war movie has a hero dying at the end instead of surviving the war.

Every romantic movie has a happy ending when in real life they generally end in a divorce.

 

This is just like the beating the dead horse threads regarding the MOH, a purple heart, helmets used on D-Day, etc. Even before the movie is released, someone is always going to complain about the movie. Are they trying to prove they know more than the producers? Are they this picky with every movie they watch? If not, why do they act this way just for a war movie? Why not just enjoy a movie instead of picking it apart…..

 

....Kat

[strawberry 9]

 

[38Driver]

Don't misunderstand my concern with being anti everything. I was fine with Redtails as it was easily recognizable as an updated version of Flying Tigers with John Wayne. The bad guys were really bad and the heroes sidekick was going to die in the end as an act of redemption. But even those guys dressed the part and used oxygen at altitude

 

Where I see this as missing is in not taking the opportunity to point out that the airwar wasn't just with the Germans as you had to fight the weather, the altitude, the technical aspects of staying alive under those conditions etc.

 

Here's hoping the Spielberg Hanks team gets it right.

[sbailey2]

My issue is not that every detail is not correct, it's that very little REAL attempt was made to make it correct. It's not like the information isn't out there. If you're going to spend a couple years and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on something, why not do it right? More to it, though...the war was a real thing, done by real people. Those people did not find it entertaining, and they sure as heck didn't do what they did so that someone else could eff it up for our entertainment and their own profit.

 

If a filmaker wants to tell their story, tell their story. This kind of stuff doesn't tell a story...it's just random stuff blowing up to jazz music...it screws up popular conception of history for decades to come, and the only real purpose it serves is to make a bunch of money by pretending to be educational while setting up a new xbox game on B-17s.

 

Sorry to be that guy.

[m1ashooter]

We should be honored that some one has put up the funding to make a movie about events that happened 71 years ago.

[cutiger83]

The part that gets me is that y’all are basing your critique on less than 3 minutes of a 90 – 120 minute movie. How can you say that they did not portray all of the conditions of flight when you see such a small segment? How do you know what happened before or after this segment? How can you say this kind of stuff does not tell a story when you are not seeing the entire movie? Y'all are putting the cart before the horse. I prefer to see a movie before passing judgement. I prefer to read a book before saying whether or not I like the book.

 

As m1ashooter said "We should be honored that some one has put up the funding to make a movie about events that happened 71 years ago." rather than making some of the other garbage that has been released lately.

 

...Kat

[RustyCanteen]

I just don’t understand why people on here complain that certain war movies are not being produced. Then when movies are produced, they complain about every minute detail in the movie. EVERY movie of every type that has ever been produced has inaccuracies. That is why it is called a MOVIE NOT a DOCUMENTARY!

 

Even before the movie is released, someone is always going to complain about the movie. Are they trying to prove they know more than the producers? Are they this picky with every movie they watch? If not, why do they act this way just for a war movie? Why not just enjoy a movie instead of picking it apart…..

 

....Kat

 

Kat, this is the internet..if people didn't pick things apart (especially something which cannot defend itself like a film or book) then they wouldn't have anything to do.

 

[Sabrejet]

Isn't it strange...(or maybe not)... how a 64 year old movie like "12 O'clock High" is still a whole lot better than pretty much any WW2 AAF movie that's come along since then...and not a single CGI'd B-17 in sight! Leading men really were "leading men" in those days. They could get through a movie without cussing and directors could tell such a story well without having blood and brains splattered all over the screen. To coin a phrase..."They don't make 'em like that any more!"

 

 

 

 

[AAF_Collection]

I agree entirely Ian, and I won't be bothering with this offering(mind you it's years since I last went to the pictures, and I hardly watch TV). I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Way to the Stars yet, now that's a classic!.

 

Matt.

[cutiger83]

Isn't it strange...(or maybe not)... how a 64 year old movie like "12 O'clock High" is still a whole lot better than pretty much any WW2 AAF movie that's come along since then...and not a single CGI'd B-17 in sight! Leading men really were "leading men" in those days. They could get through a movie without cussing and directors could tell such a story well without having blood and brains splattered all over the screen. To coin a phrase..."They don't make 'em like that any more!"

 

 

Ian,

 

While you are correct about the film “12 O’clock High”, the film needs to be put in perspective. I am not arguing with you about this fact but I think comparing a film produced just after WWII to one produced 68 years later is not fair to the current film.

 

The film was made in 1949 so there were lots of surplus WWII items to use in the film. Actual combat footage was used in the film. These quotes are from Wikipedia: “Twelve O'Clock High was indeed produced with the full cooperation of the Air Force and made use of actual combat footage during the battle scenes, including some shot by the Luftwaffe.”

 

The producers today don’t have the luxury of using actual combat footage. “Although originally planned to be shot in Technicolor, it was instead shot in black and white, allowing (as is noted in the main title sequence) all aerial footage to have been shot in actual combat by Allied and Luftwaffe cameras.”

 

There were still lots of WWII veterans to help with the filming “Screenwriters Bartlett and Lay drew on their own wartime experiences with Eighth Air Force bomber units.” Today, there are very few WWII veterans to help with the filming. The cost of producing a film today outweighs the cost of hiring some experts to help with the small details.

 

Regarding the combat footage and CGI debate, can you imagine the uproar if someone deliberately crashed a B-17 to make a film? “Paul Mantz, Hollywood's leading stunt pilot, was paid the then-unprecedented sum of $4,500 to crash-land a B-17 bomber for one early scene in the film.”

 

You are correct that they should not have so much cussing in the films. The vets did not cuss as much as portrayed in current films. Regarding the “blood and guts” comment, someone earlier in this thread said that films today are not realistic. I think the earlier films tended to sugar coat what battles were really like. When Saving Private Ryan was produced, critics said the first 15 minutes was the most accurate portrayal of a real beach landing. I am sure there was a lot more “blood and guts” in air battles than was portrayed in earlier movies.

 

...Kat

[Gregory]

Everything has its limits -- the "licentia poetica" as well. Do WWII era submarines fly in the movies? No, they don't. Do B-17s bahave like the German Mistel, American B747/Space Shuttle combo or Soviet An-225/Buran Shuttle combo? Yes, they do, as can be seen in linked trailer. For whom are such movies? Why the guys who have no clue what flight mechanics and airframe strength are produce cinema nonsense? In the newest (2012) "Fortress" movie every B-17 hit by flak performs an inside loop. Very funny, but for whom is it? Why people have to pay to see such absurdities? Could "Memphis Belle" producers do relatively good movie? Yes, they could. Is it necessary to produce one more, and one more, and one more mutant of the "Memphis Belle" the more so that their producers have no clue what aviation is?

[RustyCanteen]

Everything has its limits -- the "licentia poetica" as well. Do WWII era submarines fly in the movies? No, they don't. Do B-17s bahave like the German Mistel, American B747/Space Shuttle combo or Soviet An-225/Buran Shuttle combo? Yes, they do, as can be seen in linked trailer. For whom are such movies? Why the guys who have no clue what flight mechanics and airframe strength are produce cinema nonsense? In the newest (2012) "Fortress" movie every B-17 hit by flak performs an inside loop. Very funny, but for whom is it? Why people have to pay to see such absurdities? Could "Memphis Belle" producers do relatively good movie? Yes, they could. Is it necessary to produce one more, and one more, and one more mutant of the "Memphis Belle" the more so that their producers have no clue what aviation is?

 

It still boils down to entertainment with a worldwide box office appeal. It is only a movie, and when I sit down to watch a film I am willing to suspend reality to enjoy the story presented before me. Sometimes the focus is not the props or the background but the characters themselves...

 

For all I care, WWII submarines can fly in movies..afterall it worked for the Yamato.. But then again, I immensely enjoyed U-571 for the fun action-y romp it was.

[Linedoggie]

Absolutely horrible makes Red tails look good. And too many inaccuracies too count. Waist guns window mounted in 42? photog ran right through area where the top turret would be

[RustyCanteen]

Just thinking aloud hear, we haven't see the movie yet..

 

Sometimes the focus is not the props or the background but the characters themselves...

[Linedoggie]

All these movies are like the Boeing's product placement. Nobody sees in Hollywood that B-17 was not the only one bomber of WWII?

 

"Air Force" -- movie on B-17

"Memphis Belle" -- on B-17

"Fortress" -- on B-17

"Mighty Eight" -- on B-17

 

Where are the movies on B-24?

 

How many Airworthy B-24 are there?

[RustyCanteen]

Good point. There was a recent thread where many people expressed the opinion that historic aircraft should not be allowed to fly lest they be irreparably damaged or destroyed. One day the only way to see these planes in flight may be through CGI.

[Gregory]

Two or three, am not sure.

[ssggates]

Aw, just enjoy it for what it is, Hollywood!!! We should all be glad that none of know what it was REALLY like up there. In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius... ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??

[Garandomatic]

"Regarding the combat footage and CGI debate, can you imagine the uproar if someone deliberately crashed a B-17 to make a film? “Paul Mantz, Hollywood's leading stunt pilot, was paid the then-unprecedented sum of $4,500 to crash-land a B-17 bomber for one early scene in the film.”"

 

I never said I'd rather a B-17 be crashed to make a movie. I just do not like how most CGI ends up looking like Star Wars. I can also handle a movie playing loose with the details (I've loved "Memphis Belle" since I was a kid), but when they move something two years in the wrong direction, yeah, I dunno. How good would a movie (in general) be that mixed up the year 1941 with 1945? I've read bickering on here about other movies and came up with my own ideas in the end when I finally saw it, and also have decided not to bother with others. Based upon some effort in production of the film, and the sometimes interesting discussion elsewhere on here, I'm looking forward to Fury. Jury is still out on this one, for me personally, but I do like discussion about the merits of what we have seen so far. It doesn't have to be an argument.

[Sabrejet]

To counter Kat's post...virtually all of "12 o'clock..." was ground-based.The combat sequences, such as they were, were a relatively small part of the movie as a whole. An object lesson on how an aviation movie should be shot was "The Battle of Britain". Yes, I know the various Spits and 109s were not 1940 types, but boy...did it capture what it must have looked like up there in the wide blue yonder! No aviation film has come close to matching those stunning aerial sequences...apart from "Top Gun" maybe? Trouble is, BoB could not be re-made today using real airplanes, plus the restrictions imposed by "health and safety" regulations. So...enter CGI. That's progress?!

[Gregory]

For all I care, WWII submarines can fly in movies..afterall it worked for the Yamato..

 

 

Of two evils I prefer US WWII era Manta fighter -- whatever it was, it was described and analysed in the US WWII era aviation press.

 

[38Driver]

How many Airworthy B-24 are there?

Just one combat equipped B24 flying with the Collings Foundation. The CAF has a cargo version LB30 that's been somewhat converted to B24A standards but that would not work for an ETO film of com at 24s. Kermit Weeks has one that was a flyer but it has not flown in a long long time.