Sign in to follow this  
GGGGerald

Midway 2019

18 posts in this topic

Its seems there's a new movie on the battle of Midway coming out in November. I guess Dunkirk showed Hollywood that WWII is still popular among movie goers after all these years.

Midway_Movie_HD_Poster.jpeg

Why is it that that particular engagement has spawned so many films ? Some telling basically the same stories over and over ?

I don't mind it at all. I'll go watch this since I like big budget action films. I am just curious. There have been many wars since then. Why do you think this is the one people are still interested in ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

Why is it that that particular engagement has spawned so many films ? There have been many wars since then. Why do you think this is the one people are still interested in ?

It's like Pearl Harbor, only we won.

(Ie. the decisive battle where we started gaining ground in the Pacific.)

As for "Why another Pearl/Midway movie?", think it's Roland Emmerich's career determination that we should forever keep confusing him with Michael Bay...Okay, quick, which one directed "Armageddon", and which one directed the 90's "Godzilla"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Its seems there's a new movie on the battle of Midway coming out in November. I guess Dunkirk showed Hollywood that WWII is still popular among movie goers after all these years.

Midway_Movie_HD_Poster.jpeg

Why is it that that particular engagement has spawned so many films ? Some telling basically the same stories over and over ?

I don't mind it at all. I'll go watch this since I like big budget action films. I am just curious. There have been many wars since then. Why do you think this is the one people are still interested in ?

 

Easy. It was the turning point of World War II's Pacific Theater. And WWII has been called "the last good war." 

My favorite re-creation of Midway was in the 1988 miniseries "Herman Wouk's 'War and Remembrance'." I remember rooting for Navy pilot Warren Henry (played by Michael Woods) to survive the battle and get back home to his wife Janice (Sharon Stone).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought. It's probably gonna be all CGI. It should be relatively easy to CGI lots of ships. planes, and explosions, no? 

It could be also that its the CGI houses pushing more and more of these kind of films.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah.....  :wacko:

It would be hard on any budget to build all those ships and planes, hire all those people and use all those real explosives just to destroy it all in the name of "realism".  ;) 

Like it or not, CGI does eliminate the costly "do-overs" if mistakes are found.

And as WWII survivors are getting to be fewer and fewer it's still a good idea to remind subsequent generations that there were men who fought an died in wars that actually DID pose a threat to our way of life and our country, and not waged (or engaged in) to protect trade, the oil wealthy or push an ideology down some backwards third world nation's throat.  

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EricJ said:

As for "Why another Pearl/Midway movie?", think it's Roland Emmerich's career determination that we should forever keep confusing him with Michael Bay...Okay, quick, which one directed "Armageddon", and which one directed the 90's "Godzilla"?

Bay at least made it into the Criterion Collection. :lol: Can't say that of Emmerich.

zcQiVXuZFCisdXVhLeyD96Hxr6Vqp8_large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame remakes are made just to get the young generations interested in it (if possible)

The 1976 film (which is great) isn't good enough. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hamradio said:

Shame remakes are made just to get the young generations interested in it (if possible)

The 1976 film (which is great) isn't good enough. :(

I always wanted to see the '76 original in Sensurround.  😞

220px-Midway_movie_poster.jpg

The days when movies stayed in one theater, and you could have a gimmick playing for the whole run.  (As it was, only got to see the "Battlestar Galactica" reissue in Sensurround, and the theater didn't know how it worked and pumped up the bass so you could hear it in every scene it was used...And that had to be the last one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hamradio said:

Shame remakes are made just to get the young generations interested in it (if possible)

The 1976 film (which is great) isn't good enough. :(

Rochefort must've told his men to shower by now.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Bay at least made it into the Criterion Collection. :lol: Can't say that of Emmerich.

zcQiVXuZFCisdXVhLeyD96Hxr6Vqp8_large.jpg

At times like this, it is something to read Roger Ebert's review of it.....

Quote

 

Here it is at last, the first 150-minute trailer. "Armageddon" is cut together like its own highlights. Take almost any 30 seconds at random, and you'd have a TV ad. The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained. No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out.

The plot covers many of the same bases as the recent "Deep Impact," which, compared with "Armageddon," belongs on the American Film Institute list. The movie tells a similar story at fast-forward speed, with Bruce Willis as an oil driller who is recruited to lead two teams on an emergency shuttle mission to an asteroid "the size of Texas," which is about to crash into Earth and obliterate all life--"even viruses!" Their job: Drill an 800-foot hole and stuff a bomb into it, to blow up the asteroid before it kills us.

OK, say you do succeed in blowing up an asteroid the size of Texas. What if a piece the size of Dallas is left? Wouldn't that be big enough to destroy life on Earth? What about a piece the size of Austin? Let's face it: Even an object the size of that big Wal-Mart outside Abilene would pretty much clean us out, if you count the parking lot.

Texas is a big state, but as a celestial object, it wouldn't be able to generate much gravity. Yet when the astronauts get to the asteroid, they walk around on it as if the gravity is the same as on Earth. There's no sensation of weightlessness--until it's needed, that is, and then a lunar buggy flies across a jagged canyon, Evel Knievel-style.

The movie begins with a Charlton Heston narration telling us about the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Then we get the masterful title card, "65 Million Years Later." The next scenes show an amateur astronomer spotting the object. We see top-level meetings at the Pentagon and in the White House. We meet Billy Bob Thornton, head of Mission Control in Houston, which apparently functions like a sports bar with a big screen for the fans, but no booze. Then we see ordinary people whose lives will be Changed Forever by the events to come. This stuff is all off the shelf--there's hardly an original idea in the movie.

"Armageddon" reportedly used the services of nine writers. Why did it need any? The dialogue is either shouted one-liners or romantic drivel. "It's gonna blow!" is used so many times, I wonder if every single writer used it once, and then sat back from his word processor with a contented smile on his face, another day's work done.

Disaster movies always have little vignettes of everyday life. The dumbest in "Armageddon" involves two Japanese tourists in a New York taxi. After meteors turn an entire street into a flaming wasteland, the woman complains, "I want to go shopping!" I hope in Japan that line is redubbed as "Nothing can save us but Gamera!" Meanwhile, we wade through a romantic subplot involving Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck. Liv plays Bruce Willis' daughter. Ben is Willis' best driller (now, now). Bruce finds Liv in Ben's bunk on an oil platform and chases Ben all over the rig, trying to shoot him. (You would think the crew would be preoccupied by the semi-destruction of Manhattan, but it's never mentioned after it happens.) Helicopters arrive to take Willis to the mainland so he can head up the mission to save mankind, etc., and he insists on using only crews from his own rig--especially Affleck, who is "like a son." That means Liv and Ben have a heart-rending parting scene. What is it about cinematographers and Liv Tyler? She is a beautiful young woman, but she's always being photographed while flat on her back, with her brassiere riding up around her chin and lots of wrinkles in her neck from trying to see what some guy is doing. (In this case, Affleck is tickling her navel with animal crackers.) Tyler is obviously a beneficiary of Take Your Daughter to Work Day. She's not only on the oil rig, but she attends training sessions with her dad and her boyfriend, hangs out in Mission Control and walks onto landing strips right next to guys wearing foil suits.

Characters in this movie actually say: "I wanted to say ... that I'm sorry," "We're not leaving them behind!," "Guys--the clock is ticking!" and "This has turned into a surrealistic nightmare!" Steve Buscemi, a crew member who is diagnosed with "space dementia," looks at the asteroid's surface and adds "This place is like Dr. Seuss' worst nightmare." Quick--which Seuss book is he thinking of? There are several Red Digital Readout scenes, in which bombs tick down to zero. Do bomb designers do that for the convenience of interested onlookers who happen to be standing next to a bomb? There's even a retread of the classic scene where they're trying to disconnect the timer, and they have to decide whether to cut the red wire or the blue wire. The movie has forgotten that *this is not a terrorist bomb,* but a standard-issue U.S. military bomb, being defused by a military guy who is on board specifically because he knows about this bomb. A guy like that, the first thing he should know is, red or blue? "Armageddon" is loud, ugly and fragmented. Action sequences are cut together at bewildering speed out of hundreds of short edits, so that we can't see for sure what's happening, or how, or why. Important special-effects shots (such as the asteroid) have a murkiness of detail, and the movie cuts away before we get a good look. The few "dramatic" scenes consist of the sonorous recitation of ancient cliches. Only near the end, when every second counts, does the movie slow down: Life on Earth is about to end, but the hero delays saving the planet in order to recite cornball farewell platitudes.

Staggering into the silence of the theater lobby after the ordeal was over, I found a big poster that was fresh off the presses with the quotes of junket blurbsters. "It will obliterate your senses!" reports David Gillin, who obviously writes autobiographically. "It will suck the air right out of your lungs!" vows Diane Kaminsky.

If it does, consider it a mercy killing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hamradio said:

Shame remakes are made just to get the young generations interested in it (if possible)

The 1976 film (which is great) isn't good enough. :(

I guess the weakness of the 1976 film, out of respect for the men of that moment of history, was its decision to use newsreel footage of the battles rather than recreate them as was done for "Tora! Tora! Tora!" with the result being an inconsistent look throughout the film. Wouldn't it be great if they could just do the battle footage over for a restoration of how "Midway" should have looked the first time around, with hopefully an additional improvement over Sensurround? It sure had the right stuff though when it came to cast and score.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EricJ said:

I always wanted to see the '76 original in Sensurround.  😞

220px-Midway_movie_poster.jpg

The days when movies stayed in one theater, and you could have a gimmick playing for the whole run.  (As it was, only got to see the "Battlestar Galactica" reissue in Sensurround, and the theater didn't know how it worked and pumped up the bass so you could hear it in every scene it was used...And that had to be the last one.)

All "sensurround" was is a line of subwoofers cranked up .  I only saw EARTHQUAKE with the gimmick and it was really annoying.  

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

All "sensurround" was is a line of subwoofers cranked up .  I only saw EARTHQUAKE with the gimmick and it was really annoying.  

Sepiatone

 

What's more annoying is fake Cinerama accompanying Sensurround. :wacko:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I experience Sensurround every time one of these wretched things drives by. :angry:

5398290051_large.jpg?v=0

maxresdefault.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 11:20 AM, hamradio said:

Shame remakes are made just to get the young generations interested in it (if possible)

The 1976 film (which is great) isn't good enough. :(

Remakes are NOT made 'just to get the young generations interested'.

They are made to make money.    New adaptations of WWII stories (battles etc..),  will continue until there are a few that lose money.   This is how it has been for almost 100 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Remakes are NOT made 'just to get the young generations interested'.

They are made to make money.   

Like "The Wolfman" (2010) and "Ben Hur" (2016)? :wacko::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Like "The Wolfman" (2010) :wacko::lol:

You're just proving my point;  Clearly the producers of the 2010 The Wolfman didn't make the film  "just to get the young generations interested".

They made the film because they believed it would make money.    The fact that it was a bomb and lost money doesn't change that.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a little bit of both involved.  And some ego too.

A modern film maker, possibly( and probably) not yet born when the original was made might figure HIS generation might like a BETTER( in his/her mind) version of whichever movie more, and figures with his/her "new" skills in film making(and available better FX) would be more up to the task.  And why not?  It's worked well for music! ("covers") 

I've known, over the years, many who found NEW interest in older and original movies and musical artists due to liking the "remake" or "Covers" and then having curiosity about the originals, and who subsequently wound up liking the originals better.  Now, I don't think I'm talking about huge numbers here, and likely true too, is the claim those "covers" were made with money as the impetus, but could also be getting the younger generation's interest in spending their MONEY to see them as well.  I'm willing to bet next month's pension check that more much younger people than me, and most millennials would prefer and probably think  the 2001 PEARL HARBOR is a better movie than 1970's TORA! TORA! TORA! , which IS the better film reconstruction of the attack and the events leading up to it.  

And shameful as it sounds on the surface, I know many in my generation who claimed to NOT know who CARL PERKINS was until The BEATLES did a "cover" of Carl's "Honey Don't".  :huh:  And still like it better

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us