Midway 2019

[MEPATNUT]

We went to see this movie on Friday and we thought it was very good.

Now I know that the "critics" did not say good things about the movie. However if you read what most of what the "critics" said, many were giving reasons not related to the movie.

This movie tells the real story of the decisive naval battle with the Japanese fleet off the island of Midway. And it told the story of the events before the battle and the real men who fought the battle. This pretty much stuck to the historical facts and the special effects gave you a look as to what it must have been like for the pilots and the sailors aboard those ships on both sides.

I was disappointed in Dunkirk although the "critics' gave it high marks. It was good but could have been a lot better. Midway is worth shelling out the bucks to see on the big screen.

 

[O_P_T]

We went to see this movie on Friday and we thought it was very good.

Now I know that the "critics" did not say good things about the movie. However if you read what most of what the "critics" said, many were giving reasons not related to the movie.

This movie tells the real story of the decisive naval battle with the Japanese fleet off the island of Midway. And it told the story of the events before the battle and the real men who fought the battle. This pretty much stuck to the historical facts and the special effects gave you a look as to what it must have been like for the pilots and the sailors aboard those ships on both sides.

I was disappointed in Dunkirk although the "critics' gave it high marks. It was good but could have been a lot better. Midway is worth shelling out the bucks to see on the big screen.

I've been a big fan of the story of the battle of Midway since I read Walter Lord's Incredible Victory 50 odd years ago.

I actually met George Gay when I was very young. I don't remember it. My father was a pilot in the Navy during WWII and he knew him.

I did chuckle at one of the ads I saw for the movie which claimed, IIRC, "the untold true story".

What part of that story hasn't been told?

Regarding Dunkirk, I think your disappointment has to do with what the movie was actually about.

It was not a movie about Dunkirk, in the historical sense. That is, it was never intended to tell an audience about what happened over those few days.

It was a movie about survival, that just so happened to take place at Dunkirk.

It's no accident that one didn't see a German on screen until the final seconds of the movie, when they capture the RAF pilot.

This was intentional. Because of this, the German's were portrayed more as a "force of nature" that the participants had to survive, than actual people.

Think lava in Dante's Peak, fire in The Towering Inferno, water in The Poseidon Adventure, etc.

The story is how the people on screen deal with, and survive, those things that are trying to kill them.

Now if that's not your cup of tea, that's fine.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

8-1 isn't bad...oh wait, whatever.

 

[rivshark86]

Dunkirk was awful. What was up with calling Germans the enemy, and not Germans? I got the feeling they were thinking of international sales, or were being politically correct or something. I was excited after reading the reviews and really let down. I understand the points made above. It wasn’t for me. Midway could be ok, but looks heavy on the CGI.

I’d love to get a good WW2 movie that’s not trying to make some statement like the thin red line, but that’s shot like the thin red line. I still need to see fury, but I had my doubts on that one. Enemy at the gates was pretty good. I guess saving private Ryan is the standard now.

 

[MEPATNUT]

I've been a big fan of the story of the battle of Midway since I read Walter Lord's Incredible Victory 50 odd years ago.

I actually met George Gay when I was very young. I don't remember it. My father was a pilot in the Navy during WWII and he knew him.

I did chuckle at one of the ads I saw for the movie which claimed, IIRC, "the untold true story".

What part of that story hasn't been told?

Regarding Dunkirk, I think your disappointment has to do with what the movie was actually about.

It was not a movie about Dunkirk, in the historical sense. That is, it was never intended to tell an audience about what happened over those few days.

It was a movie about survival, that just so happened to take place at Dunkirk.

It's no accident that one didn't see a German on screen until the final seconds of the movie, when they capture the RAF pilot.

This was intentional. Because of this, the German's were portrayed more as a "force of nature" that the participants had to survive, than actual people.

Think lava in Dante's Peak, fire in The Towering Inferno, water in The Poseidon Adventure, etc.

The story is how the people on screen deal with, and survive, those things that are trying to kill them.

Now if that's not your cup of tea, that's fine.

Both Dunkirk and Midway were huge events in WWII. Had either turned out differently, who knows how things would have gone after that.

I didn't hate the Dunkirk movie. It just was not the movie that I thought it would or should be.


And if the ad did say "the untold true story", the person who wrote that should have been slapped in the face.

But the movie itself was very good and I did pick up a few things that I didn't know before. Such as, the US using high altitude bombers to go after the Japanese fleet. That was a complete waste of planes and the men on those planes.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 PM ----------

Dunkirk was awful. What was up with calling Germans the enemy, and not Germans? I got the feeling they were thinking of international sales, or were being politically correct or something. I was excited after reading the reviews and really let down. I understand the points made above. It wasn’t for me. Midway could be ok, but looks heavy on the CGI.

I’d love to get a good WW2 movie that’s not trying to make some statement like the thin red line, but that’s shot like the thin red line. I still need to see fury, but I had my doubts on that one. Enemy at the gates was pretty good. I guess saving private Ryan is the standard now.

You do know that all but the first half hour of Savings Private Ryan was fiction.

And what he hell is CGI?

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Computer-generated imagery

 

[rivshark86]

Yeah I know saving private Ryan was fiction. Historical fiction doesn’t bother me. CGI? Heck I dunno computer generated imagery maybe? You know, fakeish looking action sequences generated off a computer.

Those high altitude bombers forced the Japanese carriers to and zig zag which delayed them from launching their planes. I don’t know how the movie portrayed it, but from my understanding it wasn’t for nothing. It gave our side a distinct advantage.

 

[MEPATNUT]

In this case the computer imagery gave the scenes a more realistic portrayal of what the air to ship combat was really like. That is one of the things that set it apart from the 1976 film.

 

[bideau]

My issue with Dunkirk was the story telling. The 3 different timelines was brutally tough to follow and if I had not been warned about it in advance, I would have been completely lost throughout.

 

[BostonTim]

We went to see this movie on Friday and we thought it was very good.

Now I know that the "critics" did not say good things about the movie. However if you read what most of what the "critics" said, many were giving reasons not related to the movie.

This movie tells the real story of the decisive naval battle with the Japanese fleet off the island of Midway. And it told the story of the events before the battle and the real men who fought the battle. This pretty much stuck to the historical facts and the special effects gave you a look as to what it must have been like for the pilots and the sailors aboard those ships on both sides.

I was disappointed in Dunkirk although the "critics' gave it high marks. It was good but could have been a lot better. Midway is worth shelling out the bucks to see on the big screen.

ROFL Read the thread title and assumed we're talking Pats, midway thru the 2019 season.

And don't do well in movies (hearing loss) so will wait to see if it shows up on Netflix or such. If so, can't wait.

Cheers

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

ROFL Read the thread title and assumed we're talking Pats, midway thru the 2019 season.

And don't do well in movies (hearing loss) so will wait to see if it shows up on Netflix or such. If so, can't wait.

Cheers

Like I said...8-1 isn't a bad start.

 

[O_P_T]

But the movie itself was very good and I did pick up a few things that I didn't know before. Such as, the US using high altitude bombers to go after the Japanese fleet. That was a complete waste of planes and the men on those planes.

There are a few reasons B-17's were sent to Midway to aid in their defense.

They Could

The B-17's were available and the US was sending just about anything it could to bolster the islands defense. Also, they could self deploy to Midway, so they could get there without taking up limited space on cargo ships.

They Thought They Could Be Effective

One has to recall when the battle took place: June 1942. The US had been in the war for ~ 6 months and didn't have much experience with land based aircraft attacking shipping.

So they believed their own claims regarding the effectiveness of high altitude bombing.

It was stated that the Norden Bomb sight could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel". So the accuracy was clearly overstated.

Yes, one should have realized a moving target is not as easy to hit, but one must also consider that when dropping a bomb from high altitude, it will be affected by any cross winds on it's way down. If they thought they could hit something as small as a pickle barrel in the presence of winds, then hitting something as big as a ship, moving or not, is not necessarily that much of a stretch.

Yes, the iconic photos showing the Japanese carriers maneuvering to avoid the B-17's show how wrong their idea was.

However, consider this.

Japanese ships didn't have radar at that time. It was certainly conceivable that the B-17's could arrive over the Japanese fleet without being detected. If they turned to fly in the same direction as the ships before they released their bombs, then hitting them becomes a much simpler problem.

Also, since we had decoded the Japanese plan, we knew the invasion force was operating independently from the carriers and would be approaching from the SW.

Hitting a slow moving cargo vessel with a B-17 is a much simpler problem than a fast warship.

So with what the military knew at the time, sending B-17's to Midway isn't as stupid an idea as it looks.

 

[MEPATNUT]

There are a few reasons B-17's were sent to Midway to aid in their defense.

They Could

The B-17's were available and the US was sending just about anything it could to bolster the islands defense. Also, they could self deploy to Midway, so they could get there without taking up limited space on cargo ships.

They Thought They Could Be Effective

One has to recall when the battle took place: June 1942. The US had been in the war for ~ 6 months and didn't have much experience with land based aircraft attacking shipping.

So they believed their own claims regarding the effectiveness of high altitude bombing.

It was stated that the Norden Bomb sight could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel". So the accuracy was clearly overstated.

Yes, one should have realized a moving target is not as easy to hit, but one must also consider that when dropping a bomb from high altitude, it will be affected by any cross winds on it's way down. If they thought they could hit something as small as a pickle barrel in the presence of winds, then hitting something as big as a ship, moving or not, is not necessarily that much of a stretch.

Yes, the iconic photos showing the Japanese carriers maneuvering to avoid the B-17's show how wrong their idea was.

However, consider this.

Japanese ships didn't have radar at that time. It was certainly conceivable that the B-17's could arrive over the Japanese fleet without being detected. If they turned to fly in the same direction as the ships before they released their bombs, then hitting them becomes a much simpler problem.

Also, since we had decoded the Japanese plan, we knew the invasion force was operating independently from the carriers and would be approaching from the SW.

Hitting a slow moving cargo vessel with a B-17 is a much simpler problem than a fast warship.

So with what the military knew at the time, sending B-17's to Midway isn't as stupid an idea as it looks.

Our torpedos were awful at that time. They either ran too low or high or didn't explode when they made contact. So, I guess there is not much difference between using high altitude bombing or using torpedos that did not work. Got to use what you have at the time and hope something works.

 

[bideau]

This is a really good 25 minute summary of the battle by the historian at the Naval War College.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wyFZ3cJRrcg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[spacecrime]

This is a really good 25 minute summary of the battle by the historian at the Naval War College.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wyFZ3cJRrcg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Excellent summary. As a kid I was fascinated by the war in the Pacific. My uncle had a copy of GUadacanal Diary and I read it over and over until the covers came off, and I wanted to be a P-38 Lightning pilot. No more p-38s (except for can openers), so I had to be satisfied with watching McHale's Navy :facepalm:

Thanks for the link, Bid!!!!

 

[AkPatsFan]

Dunkirk was awful. What was up with calling Germans the enemy, and not Germans? I got the feeling they were thinking of international sales, or were being politically correct or something. I was excited after reading the reviews and really let down. I understand the points made above. It wasn’t for me. Midway could be ok, but looks heavy on the CGI.

I’d love to get a good WW2 movie that’s not trying to make some statement like the thin red line, but that’s shot like the thin red line. I still need to see fury, but I had my doubts on that one. Enemy at the gates was pretty good. I guess saving private Ryan is the standard now.

I thought Fury was a pretty good take on what our tank crews had to do to survive against the better equipped German Tiger tank and how brutal that war was for our fighters. The uniforms and equipment used in the movie was pretty spot on too.

Letter from Iwojima was an excellent movie if you haven't seen it.