Midway Trailer

[ALF]

Buffalo pays overdue tribute to homegrown WWII aviator, hero    Published May 28, 2017

 

Lt. Commander C. Wade McClusky Jr., a South Park High School graduate, led his squad from the USS Enterprise to victory in the Battle of Midway.

 

https://buffalonews.com/2017/05/28/memorial-day-story-salute/

[Max Fischer]

On 7/1/2019 at 7:01 PM, IslandBillsFan said:

I love WW2 history but unfortunately this reminds me of the Pearl Harbor abomination.  Too many piney shots of families and women.  It also stars Mandy Moore which is concerning.

 

Additionally, the trailer promotes it as being from the same director as Independence Day.  Although Independence Day was a decent movie for me in my teens it does not hold up well except for nostalgic purposes.  The director, Roland Emmerich, has a slew of bombs under his belt.  For example, 2012, 10,000 BC, The Patriot, Godzilla....

 

 

 

He has a very poor record, which is why I have very little hope for Midway. 

 

The Patriot is an abomination. Other than having the colonialists and British fighting each other the movie is devoid of historical accuracy. 

[DC Tom]

7 hours ago, ALF said:

Buffalo pays overdue tribute to homegrown WWII aviator, hero    Published May 28, 2017

 

Lt. Commander C. Wade McClusky Jr., a South Park High School graduate, led his squad from the USS Enterprise to victory in the Battle of Midway.

 

https://buffalonews.com/2017/05/28/memorial-day-story-salute/

 

Except McClusky screwed up.  He was a fighter pilot who didn't know naval bomber doctrine (he was promoted to air group commander just before Midway, and didn't have time to learn).  During the ultimate bombing of the Kido Butai, he was leading the scout bomber squadron in the low position, and should have flown on to bomb Akagi while the bomber squadron in the high position dove on Kaga (as doctrine at the time was one squadron per enemy carrier).  Instead, he incorrectly dove the scout bombers on Kaga, while the bomber squadron correctly dove on Kaga as well.

 

That would have left Akagi completely uncovered, except the VB-6 squadron leader saw the error and pulled his flight out of his dive on Kaga.  And instead dove his three planes on Akagi - which, from the trailer, is one of the things the new movie gets right.  At 1:42 in the trailer, there's three planes diving (at roughly the right angle - about 70 degrees) on a carrier with the island to port and the Katakana letterア on the aft deck.  That carrier's Akagi, so that's certainly Dick Best's flight.

 

That and Ensign George Gay being the sole survivor of Torpedo 8 looks like the only things the movie gets right.  

[davefan66]

Hopefully a good movie.

 

Honestly though, tired of the amount of CGI that goes into movies like this.  Hope it’s not that noticeable on the big screen...

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, davefan66 said:

Hopefully a good movie.

 

Honestly though, tired of the amount of CGI that goes into movies like this.  Hope it’s not that noticeable on the big screen...

 

It's not the CGI that's the problem, it's how it's used to create a spectacle rather than tell a story.  

 

Emmerich is the worst of the bunch.  There's no emotional depth to his movies, just shallow manipulation and superficial stimulation masquerading as feeling.   Literally, the definition of sociopathy.  Personally, I can't judge him...but he is a sociopathic filmmaker.

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not the CGI that's the problem, it's how it's used to create a spectacle rather than tell a story.  

 

Emmerich is the worst of the bunch.  There's no emotional depth to his movies, just shallow manipulation and superficial stimulation masquerading as feeling.   Literally, the definition of sociopathy.  Personally, I can't judge him...but he is a sociopathic filmmaker.

I think that's fair in terms of judging his ability as a story teller/director. 

 

I watched the trailer and I'm intrigued. And since the movie doesn't purport to be a historical documentary but only says it's based on true events, then I have no problem accepting that it's a drama woven around those historical events. If it's a good, compelling story then, like any other movie, I'll like it. If not, I won't. 

 

It must be difficult at times for someone of your knowledge about the actual events, strategies, tactics, equipment, etc.,  to watch these kinds of war dramas. Technical details are gonna fall through the cracks for lots of reasons, most of which I suspect you find intolerable.

 

I'd be interested in some of your opinions/critiques of war documentaries that do purport to tell the true story. But that's another discussion entirely. 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I think that's fair in terms of judging his ability as a story teller/director. 

 

I watched the trailer and I'm intrigued. And since the movie doesn't purport to be a historical documentary but only says it's based on true events, then I have no problem accepting that it's a drama woven around those historical events. If it's a good, compelling story then, like any other movie, I'll like it. If not, I won't. 

 

It must be difficult at times for someone of your knowledge about the actual events, strategies, tactics, equipment, etc.,  to watch these kinds of war dramas. Technical details are gonna fall through the cracks for lots of reasons, most of which I suspect you find intolerable.

 

I'd be interested in some of your opinions/critiques of war documentaries that do purport to tell the true story. But that's another discussion entirely. 

 

It's extraordinarily difficult.  It's tempered by having a greater-than-average knowledge of filmmaking, so I understand the need to trade-off historical accuracy for technical or narrative reasons (e.g. Dunkirk, which made trade-offs in accuracy for a typically Nolanesque warped timeline, that served to capture the "spirit" of Dunkirk without a pretense to being a documentary narrative).  Basically can't watch most war movies (I still haven't seen U-571.)  

 

And Roland Emmerich, in particular...his tradeoffs between accuracy and filmmaking suck.  Badly.  Take, for example, just before the snippet of the trailer I referenced above.  Starting at 1:37.  Dive bomber pilot in a vertical dive sees plane hit by AAA 100 yards in front of him.  Flaming plane starts to slow down, he's heading directly for it.  Cut to pilot's face, cut to pilot's hand moving the stick.  Pilot swerves around flaming plane, continues dive.  What's wrong with that?

1) Planes do not dive in dense groups like that.  They dive singly, or by flight.  

2) Dive bombers do not dive at 90 degrees.

3) When a diving plane is hit, it does not slow-down mid-dive.  They swerve, their dive steepens.  They don't lose velocity.  (That's a really stupid error.  There's plenty of archival footage of planes being shot down that shows this.)  

4) If it did, a pilot wouldn't have time to swerve out of the way.

5) If he did, he'd swerve far more than he does in the clip.

6) Dive bombers held their dives.  They didn't move to avoid "mid-air debris" - partially because there usually wasn't such a thing, but mostly because they're diving to hit a target.  Once they nose over, they're trying to hold their sight on the target and maneuver with it to put a bomb on it.  Diving from 18k feet, they have 2-3 minutes to sight the target, put the reticule on it, figure course, speed, and rate of change of both (in their heads, no computers), and decide how to release the bomb.  If they maneuver in a dive, they miss.

 

Now, why is all that nitpicky ***** "wrong?"  Because they're unnecessary trade-offs.  An accurate scene would be 30-60 seconds of a pilot in a dive.  (30-60 seconds as a trade-off for 2-3 minutes).  Cut between pilot's face and his view out the windscreen repeatedly, with increasing rapidness.  No other planes near him, flak coming up.  As the scene progresses, tighten each cut.  Ship gets closer, you get closer to the pilot's face showing more and more stress.  Ship's getting larger in the sight and on the screen.  Flak's getting closer.  Scene gets tenser.  Pilot finally drops his bomb, pulls up, and goes roaring away at 3000 feet.  That captures the solutide and tension of that sort of combat flying, until the sudden release of that tension.  It also captures the focus and the tunnel vision that the pilot would develop in completing his mission (with the increasing tightening of the shots).  That's dramatic, tense, and historically accurate within the constraints of good filmmaking.

 

The choices Emmerich makes, above, are just plain stupid in comparison.  He clutters the screen with multiple extraneous objects and exaggerates details to give the illusion of excitement.  He creates unrealistic situations (the magically slowing plane, and unrealistic movement) to generate the illusion of tension.  And he does so because he confuses spectacle for drama.  Because he's a ***** sociopath of a director.

 

And yes, I'm saying I could write a better Midway movie than Roland Emmerich.  But that's an extremely low bar.

[sherpa]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Except McClusky screwed up.  He was a fighter pilot who didn't know naval bomber doctrine (he was promoted to air group commander just before Midway, and didn't have time to learn).  During the ultimate bombing of the Kido Butai, he was leading the scout bomber squadron in the low position, and should have flown on to bomb Akagi while the bomber squadron in the high position dove on Kaga (as doctrine at the time was one squadron per enemy carrier).  Instead, he incorrectly dove the scout bombers on Kaga, while the bomber squadron correctly dove on Kaga as well.

 

Are you serious?

 

The man and his formation were out of fuel, spotted a carrier formation, attacked it and changed the course of the Pacific war.

 

He should have "flown on?"

 

The man landed with about one gallon of fuel after destroying a Japanese carrier.

Jesus, sometimes you try too hard to establish academic bona fides.

 

As an operator, I can tell you this, and you can dispute it as you will.

 

If you are out of fuel, as he was, and as a leader of a fairly large formation, he had to assume his wingies were even worse, and you see an enemy carrier, you destroy it and get home.

Simple, operational reality.

When you see a "high value unit,"  "doctrine" be damned.

You destroy it.

You certainly don't press on, looking for someone else and guaranteeing that your wingies will have to ditch.

Edited July 6, 2019 by sherpa

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

6) Dive bombers held their dives.  They didn't move to avoid "mid-air debris" - partially because there usually wasn't such a thing, but mostly because they're diving to hit a target.  Once they nose over, they're trying to hold their sight on the target and maneuver with it to put a bomb on it.  Diving from 18k feet, they have 2-3 minutes to sight the target, put the reticule on it, figure course, speed, and rate of change of both (in their heads, no computers), and decide how to release the bomb.  If they maneuver in a dive, they miss.

 

 

You absolutely move to avoid mid air debris.

It makes no sense to die holding a pipper on a target.

Dying is worse than missing, and you can readjust after avoiding a mid air.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

Are you serious?

 

The man and his formation were out of fuel, spotted a carrier formation, attacked it and changed the course of the Pacific war.

 

He should have "flown on?"

 

The man landed with about one gallon of fuel after destroying a Japanese carrier.

Jesus, sometimes you try too hard to establish academic bona fides.

 

As an operator, I can tell you this, and you can dispute it as you will.

 

If you are out of fuel, as he was, and as a leader of a fairly large formation, he had to assume his wingies were even worse, and you see an enemy carrier, you destroy it and get home.

Simple, operational reality.

When you see a "high value unit,"  "doctrine" be damned.

You destroy it.

You certainly don't press on, looking for someone else and guaranteeing that your wingies will have to ditch.

 

Uh, yeah.  That was the doctrine: one group per carrier, high group takes the near target.  That's how targets were allocated.  McCluskey blew the target allocation, because he didn't know naval dive bombing doctrine, because he was a fighter pilot leading the scout bomber squadron.  

 

And there was a very specific reason for that doctrine: because the doctrine of carrier warfare at the time was to disable the other fleet's carriers, to gain air superiority over the enemy fleet.  Doctrine specified an even target allocation of carriers between groups, because to achieve air superiority they had to hit all the flight decks, not just have everyone diving on the first one they saw.  

 

And McCluskey, not understanding that, almost blew the battle.  If Best hadn't been cognizant enough of McCluskey's mistake and pulled his flight out, no one would have dived on Akagi, meaning the Japanese would have possessed two operational carriers (him, and Hiryu) after the initial attack, with a significantly greater number of operational strike aircraft (at least two full  deck spots).  That's a significantly different situation for Fletcher and Spruance to handle than Hiryu alone with a weakened composite air group.  

 

Yes, I know, I only have book knowledge.  But I know the doctrine of the period...and more importantly, so did Best, so I'm going to agree with the experienced squadron commander who retrieved the battle from McCluskey's error.

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

You absolutely move to avoid mid air debris.

It makes no sense to die holding a pipper on a target.

Dying is worse than missing, and you can readjust after avoiding a mid air.

 

Except they didn't.  They held their dives.  It was how they were trained, and fought.  

 

Usually pilots didn't see debris, because they rarely had huge chunks of debris such as entire planes magically decelerated by flak coming at them, and things usually moved too quickly to see and react.  But dive bomber pilots, of all air forces in the era, held their dives in the attack.  

[sherpa]

Jesus Tom. as much as I admire your research on this, you fail to realize the reality of being in the seat during a war.

 

It is quite simple. "Doctrine," as you use the phrase, disappears the minute you launch.

 

You find the people who are trying to kill your people and you kill them before they do that, trying to stay alive in the process.

 

McClusky, out of fuel,  found the Japanese fleet by chasing a destroyer.

He started the 10 minutes or so, that resulted in killing three Japanese carriers, and leading to the end of the fourth, effectively ending any Japanese offense for the rest of the war.

 

It can be argued, with great credibility, at least among those of us who have done this type of thing, that Wade McClusky,  of South Buffalo, executed the single most definitive aggression of the Pacific battle of WWII,  and I'm OK with that.

 

 

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It is quite simple. "Doctrine," as you use the phrase, disappears the minute you launch.

 

 

 

 

Didn't for Best, did it?

[sherpa]

34 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Didn't for Best, did it?

 

I'm not sure what your point is here, but if "doctrine" is, it is ridiculous. 

 

The initial strikes against the Kido Butai were 'doctrinal," and not only useless, but suicidal.

 

Idiotic high attitude strikes against ships? 

Ya. that works.

Dropping level dumb bombs against maneuvering ships?

Ya.

[davefan66]

19 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not the CGI that's the problem, it's how it's used to create a spectacle rather than tell a story.  

 

Emmerich is the worst of the bunch.  There's no emotional depth to his movies, just shallow manipulation and superficial stimulation masquerading as feeling.   Literally, the definition of sociopathy.  Personally, I can't judge him...but he is a sociopathic filmmaker.

 

You can have CGI that enhances a story.  Too much, especially with a weak director/story does not make a blockbuster.