"Midway"
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
clarkgriswold
Well-known member
Did anybody see this? I was looking forward to it but it doesn't seem to be getting good reviews and disappointed at the box office.
I'd normally be interested in seeing movies like this, but after seeing what they did to Pearl Harbor (what with its idiotic story line to say the least), I'm holding back. Too many over-the-top CGI scenes and general Hollywood-looking BS to make me think otherwise.
Was this movie eagerly anticipated to be coming out? I'm usually all over hot releases like this and only recall starting to see previews 2-3 weeks ago. Was it rushed to final production?
Was this movie eagerly anticipated to be coming out? I'm usually all over hot releases like this and only recall starting to see previews 2-3 weeks ago. Was it rushed to final production?
Last edited:
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
A Jonas brother? Might as well of cast Justin Beiber. The previews look like way too much CGI BS for me.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
I am not a fan of CGI when it can be avoided but I don't know how many Japanese Zero's are still in flying condition, not to mention Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers or WWII aircraft carriers. To make these big WWII movies it is becoming necessary to use CGI.
The scope of this films seems extremely wide ranging as it looks like the trailers include the Doolittle Raiders and even Pearl Harbor. That might have been a bit too much to do well.
I'll give it a chance and hope that they did not give it the Pearl Harbor treatment with unnecessary romantic side stories and unbelievable character development.
I'll be the guinea pig and let you all know what I think.
In the mean time: watch Jojo Rabbit.
The scope of this films seems extremely wide ranging as it looks like the trailers include the Doolittle Raiders and even Pearl Harbor. That might have been a bit too much to do well.
I'll give it a chance and hope that they did not give it the Pearl Harbor treatment with unnecessary romantic side stories and unbelievable character development.
I'll be the guinea pig and let you all know what I think.
In the mean time: watch Jojo Rabbit.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
I am down with that too. Last week I bought a M1917 Winchester and I own a WWI US "Brodie" helmet. Obviously, I have a lot of interest in the "Great War".
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
I do not have a problem with CGI, I just cannot stand it when a story suffers because of overkill CGI. I'm not a big battle scene guy to start with. If you have seen one you've seen them all.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Honestly, like I said about Midway (into the wind) a year ago on the boards, this one doesn't have the look either. The trailor stuck me scripted heart tug to scripted heart tug instead of a story and the sets too clean, neatly constructed.
Thavoice
Well-known member
Buddy of mine, who is a movie snob, said he loved this movie. He was in the running for a job a couple of years ago to be a military consultant on tv and movies and any time I bring up a war movie he will rag on every little imperfection that wasn't correct for the times, including the original Midway.
Auggie
Well-known member
Story might be recycled, WW1 Version of Saving Private Ryan, but I am hearing the directing and cinematography is worth a viewing on the big screen. By the way there has been a great run on WW1 films, there must be something about those trenches that gets directors juices flowing.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Fertile ground? Not much of a tv industry after WWI. WWII done to exhaustion, as you say, recycled. The great war was the seeding for WWII. Australia seems the only country interested. Gallipoli, Beneath Hill 60 were both great. We practically have to go back to Paths of Glory for a movie set in the fight as opposed to the periphery. I'm not aware of the movies you're referring to: "Great Run." Have I just forgotten? War Horse is the only one coming to mind.
ogealbhain
Well-known member
"They Shall Not Grow Old"? "1917" is coming in December as mentioned.
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
There was also a 2003 BBC documentary series called The First World War:
Thavoice
Well-known member
I saw They Shall Not Grow Old and didn't like it. I don't believe I was in the right frame of mind to watch it. We went to the theatre to see something else, wife said 'hey, this is war movie, lets see it' so I went in with diff expecations.
I bet if I saw it again I would enjoy it though.
Looking fwd to 1917.
Couldn't get anyone to go with me to see Midway so maybe ill look online for a pirated version.
Auggie
Well-known member
I too am think along the lines They Shall not Grow Old, War Horse, and Beneath Hill 60, also the battle scene from Wonder Woman; all done in the last 10 years. That is a lot for a war that is over 100 years old.
Termite2
Well-known member
It is not as bad as TMTSNBN ; but still has too many inaccuracies for my historical sensibilities.
As an examp[le, SBD drops it's bomb, plane levels off about 50 feet over the water and flies away, reality is that would be suicide, bomb travels faster than an SBD with dive brakes on; While it is common to believe that US dive bombers hit the Japanese Carriers when they had planes on their deck ready to launch, the truth is the planes were still in the hangers, can't believe that myth is still around.
BTW number of planes shot down by Japanese flak- at the most 2, probably none, their AA was horrible, their fighter pilots were the ones that shot down all the planes.
Anyone interedted in the best book on the battle: Shattered Sword
As an examp[le, SBD drops it's bomb, plane levels off about 50 feet over the water and flies away, reality is that would be suicide, bomb travels faster than an SBD with dive brakes on; While it is common to believe that US dive bombers hit the Japanese Carriers when they had planes on their deck ready to launch, the truth is the planes were still in the hangers, can't believe that myth is still around.
BTW number of planes shot down by Japanese flak- at the most 2, probably none, their AA was horrible, their fighter pilots were the ones that shot down all the planes.
Anyone interedted in the best book on the battle: Shattered Sword
Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
www.shatteredswordbook.com
Stirred not Shaken
Well-known member
Not as good as the original but still worth the 6 bucks I paid to watch it. Visual effects were good even if the story telling wasn't always 100 % historically accurate but how many movie goers under 40 know much if anything about Midway. Glad they still make WWII movies, gives the younger generation a taste of the heroism undertook by their grandfathers and great grandfathers. Went to see this movie on a Tuesday night and the theatre was about 80 % full, which surprised me.
Thavoice
Well-known member
Historically accurate is a thing of the past for most Hollywood movies.
Sometimes they just switch things to make it a bit more interesting.
Packed on a Tuesday? In my area, Tuesday is matinee pricing all evening so the cheapskates and old people go. If you had to guess, was the average age above 60?!??!?
Stirred not Shaken
Well-known member
No that is what was also surprising, I would say the avg. age was mid 30's. Went to Lock One Theatre which is not big but I highly recommend, they had to open up the balcony. Maybe some of the younger actors such as Nick Jonas appealed to the younger crowd.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
For those interested in WWI films, The Big Parade (1925) is one of the best. It was featured on TCM this past Monday. Sorry I did not give you a heads-up before it ran. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) is another good one.
I went to the movie for the popcorn, pop, and entertainment. I didn't go into the theater with the intent of seeing a true historical account of the battle, as such I got all 3: popcorn, pop, and entertainment. Seeing the movie did cause me to do some more reading about the battle and events leading up to the battle. I am not too sure that if we had lost the battle we wouldn't all be speaking Japanese.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
If I could have liked this twice, I would have. The people that are making the movies put too WAY too much CGI into it. CGI should accent a movie, not be the whole story line. It is to the point that I can barely stand watching most blockbuster American movies.
When I picture the people in the room starting to make the movie, I see them saying, "you know what would be cool to have in this movie?" And then each person tries to outdo the other.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
This!
Have technology: will use. This is exactly how I picture Jar-Jar Binks coming to be.
Not a chance. Japan was never looking to invade the US. Logistically it was not possible. They had their hands (army) full in China.
They were simply hoping to put the US in a position to broker a favorable cease fire.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Hawaii and the Pacific Territories might be speaking Japanese but I don't think that all would have hinged on Midway. Hard to imagine a 1940s era US negotiating away territory based on losses there, particularly when we still had the manufacturing machine and the war in Europe over. Japan would have had to full on occupy and put us in the position of hostage negotiation.
Termite2
Well-known member
Not a chance Japan captures Hawaii; they didn't have a chance of capturing Midway even if the US Navy lost the battle. Japan was very successful in capturing undefended beaches; not so much defended ones. If the landing had went through, it is doubtful that any Japanese would have reached the beaches, let alone capture the island. There was only one way to invade because of the coral reefs; that was through the channel that had been blasted by the US; it was covered by about every heavy piece of artillery on the island. plus they modified the AA to fire at them, plus the organic MG's in the CD units. The reef is exactly why the US developed the Amtrac, to get over it. The Japanese would have had to advance to the reef let the troops out and then the troops would have had to then wade a couple of hundred yards to shore. To give an idea of what would have happened, the same unit that was scheduled to invade Midway was used on Guadalcanal, they were wiped out by 1/10 the firepower available on Midway.
The invasion of the Hawaii islands was not possible because the Japanese didn't have the logistical capability and was unable to supply a carrier force off the islands like the US did later in the war; and that is not even mentioning the 100,000+ US troops on the island. It is possible they could have landed on one of the islands but not Oahu and that meant the eventual starvation of any troops, just like all the other islands in the Pacific
eastisbest
Well-known member
[sarcasm] Makes me wonder why we even bothered losing all those men defending and taking them back. [/sarcasm]
Alternate realities are fun to bandy about.
I imagine SOMEONE thought that unchecked, there was enough of a possibility. I don't think our defensive policy relied on the geography seeing how WE at one time took control of those islands.
There's more than one way to take territory. One way is to make the costs to keep it or get it too high. Didn't work out so well for Chamberlin but Japan might still have tried it under the right conditions. If Japan had won Midway and been able to hurt our Navy to the point of non-response (not knowing the existence of the bomb), they would have continued East as a means to keep us out of China. I can see a war weary US being done with Europe saying a few people in TERRITORIES not worth the lives to take and keep them, if we could get peace.
There was a lot of internal strife in the US towards the end of the war. Only so much political capital to expend. Midway is called "critical" for a reason I suppose.
Last edited: