Ok, saw Behind Enemy Lines, and I have a serious rant...

[AndrewR]

Even though the movie was fairly rife with glaring technical errors, I could overlook a significant portion of them. However, the SAM shootdown of the jet was just too much to bear. Talk about Hollywood...

WARNING, WARNING --- SPOILERS AHEAD









First off, the SAM system in question is the SA-13 GOPHER (tracked TEL, 4 x canister launchers, IR seeker head). Now, as you can see in the parenthetical, the SA-13 is an IR-based system, not radar or LOS. Pay attention: IR systems are not detectable prior to launch. Further, they are ONLY detectable at launch by the heat and blast from the rocket motor and the visual cues of a missile in the air (ie., smoke). Some sort of indicator lit up in the cockpit BEFORE launch when the seeker head was exposed in the canister. How in God's name is an aircraft supposed to pick up a PASSIVE sensor being exposed? Sure, the SA-13 carries the HAT BOX ROR radar system, but that would be used prior to exposure of the seeker head, not concurrent with it.

Now, the next problem I have with the SAM engagement is the supposed range of these missiles. The SA-13 is a small missile, which you could see in the movie. How in the world did they have that much range to go back and forth and back and forth with hard manuevering? Is this some mysterious new propellant that lasts forever?

There were some other things, like I mentioned, but that just took the cake. Overall, I did like the movie, but I guess my training and my knowledge just make movies like this a little difficult to swallow sometimes. I am, however, awaiting Blackhawk Down with quaking anticipation!

One brief question: Does anyone know the specific model of the sniper rifle that "Sasha" was using? A quick look in Jane's appears to confirm my belief that it's a Steyr-Mannlicher SSG-69, but I'm not entirely positive because it seems like they should have used something newer. Any ideas?

Bonus points to anyone who can tell everyone what the name (spelled out acronym) of the intelligence room is on the carrier where the admiral was watching the IR satellite imagery when our fearless hero was facedown with the bodies. The acronym was mentioned several times.

 

[pulse8]

It's not a documentary.

 

[Sluggo]

Do you also get mad when there is a 1967 Chevrolet in a movie that is supposed to be set in 1965?

I think you just know too much about it, the guys make movies, they dont know the intricacies of anti-aircraft weaponry.

 

[cerebusPu]

dude...you shouldnt nitpick hollywood war movies. if you are gonna do that...theres some more obvious problems. like the scene in the very end where he runs back and forth on the lake in the midst of a huge battle. it was cool to watch...just because it was tense..not because it was realistic. same with the SAM shootdown of the plane..it was tense and fun to watch. the standard movie goer can care less if its not totally accurate.

 

[LAUST]

The things that bugged me was there was some really sweet special effects in that, but sometimes went overboard, like when the guy was loading his Sniper Rifle, they did that FAST... Slow... Fast... thing...my buddy and I looked at each other like WTF?

 

[Lankin]

Its not as bad as Spy Game.

When Brad Pitt's character gives the prisoner a STICK of gum then the prisoner blows a bubble with it. You cant blow that big of bubble with a stick of gum...

 

[pulse8]

It's not just that it's Hollywood you ignorant fools. It's called filmmaking and storytelling and they aren't the only ones that do it. I'm sure there are books that aren't completely technically accurate.

 

[LAUST]

<< It's not just that it's Hollywood you ignorant fools. It's called filmmaking and storytelling and they aren't the only ones that do it. I'm sure there are books that aren't completely technically accurate. >>


Ignorant Fools is kinda harsh to use, especially when the subject matter did refer to a Hollywood creation in this case. If it was used in the matter of "Hollywood films are the only bull$h!tting content in the world" I could see your point

 

[Noriaki]

<< Its not as bad as Spy Game.

When Brad Pitt's character gives the prisoner a STICK of gum then the prisoner blows a bubble with it. You cant blow that big of bubble with a stick of gum... >>

I love how they drew the conclusion that there was a spy in the ambulance from the stick of gum.


I thought Behind Enemy Lines was a pretty good movie, even if it wasn't realistic...

Why do people do that so much?
I think Hackers and Antitrust are both pretty good movies, even though the technical details are so terrible any first year CS student could pick out flaws. But they are still good movies.

I'm sure that Behind Enemy Lines wasn't technically perfect, but it was still a pretty enjoyable movie (much better that spy game, which I thought had no plot at all, even for just an action movie, with actors like Brad Pitt, and Robert Redford I expect better).

 

[PsychoAndy]

I thought that the rifle was a steyr scout, but it looked quite different. Not sure.

Was the room a SCIF? I didnt really catch it :-\

And yes, I hope blackhawk down will be the s#it

 

[Noriaki]

Blackhawk Down looks great.

But what makes you think it will be any better on the details than any other war movie?

 

[UofI]

I liked the movie even if it had some tactical flaws in it.

 

[AndrewR]

I think you just know too much about it...

Probably true since it's my job.

It's not just that it's Hollywood you ignorant fools.

Go crawl back under your rock. Even if it is Hollywood, it's just not too difficult to hire someone with some technical knowledge to make the movie more realistic without sacrificing reality. For instance, instead of using an SA-13, they could have used a mock up of an SA-6 GAINFUL which IS radar guided and has a longer range -- and is historically accurate as far as the Serbian military is concerned (SA-13 should be, too, but my point is that the GAINFUL is in their inventory). Further, they could have had two launchers with a total of six missiles and fired all of them at the plane -- instead of being chased by just two for three minutes (seemed like it), they could have been dodging a couple which fell then dodging a couple more, which fell, etc.

but it was still a pretty enjoyable movie

Agreed -- I did enjoy it, but see my comments above. It annoys so many people because they make SIMPLE MISTAKES which are easily avoided. Why was the guy using a Steyr when he could easily be using a Dragunov rifle? Since it's a Russian weapon, it makes a lot more sense. For another thing, why was a Marine carrying an MP-5? Sure, they look cool, but no self-respecting special operations soldier (technically there are no Marines that are SO, but they have units which operate in the same manner) would use an SMG for what was almost surely a long range engagement. A great many SO soldiers use weapons with 7.62mm rounds -- higher power, longer range, greater accuracy.

I thought that the rifle was a steyr scout, but it looked quite different. Not sure.

Yes, I thought of the Scout initially, but it seemed to be using a larger caliber than 5.56 -- which leads me to the SSG-69. Could be another model, but my resources are limited to Jane's right now since my other books are packed away somewhere.

Was the room a SCIF?

Yes, it was a SCI-F. What does that mean? I know what it is since I go to class every day in one (and will work in one), but I wonder if anyone actually knows what it is outside of the military. They should have defined it at some point.

But what makes you think it [Blackhawk Down] will be any better on the details than any other war movie?

Because it's based off of a fantastic book which was researched very meticulously, and the author has been involved with making the movie. As well, they used helicopters from the 1st Cav in making the movie in Morocco (the Army landed in some hot water for that, but they were paid for their time which made up for the lost time for the crews and the added maintenance). None of the clips in the trailer seem to be anything but good, solid reality. Lastly, there is simply no need to "Hollywoodize" the battle -- it was an almost unbelievable undertaking just based on the facts themselves. There's no need to create fiction when the documentary is exciting enough.

I admit that sometimes logistical problems can trump reality, and it's perfectly understandable -- like in Saving Private Ryan when they had a P-51 kill the German tank on the bridge instead of having something more accurate like a P-47 Thunderbolt. P-51s are everywhere, and you can stretch your acceptance a bit when the plane was there and flying at the time. In total, though, SPR was proof that movies can be very historically and technically accurate without sacrificing drama (sure, there are other errors in it, but hardly noticeable to the vast majority of people). Another confirmation of that came from Band of Brothers on HBO.

Anyway, back to Blackhawk Down. They handed out some significant medal candy after that engagement, but it was ALL deserved. Incidentally, the only active duty Air Force enlisted man to hold the Air Force Cross, which he earned in that battle, retired earlier this year. I think he is a pararescueman. Damn -- I just hope I get stationed down with those folks!!

 

[jpsj82]

"<< Its not as bad as Spy Game.

When Brad Pitt's character gives the prisoner a STICK of gum then the prisoner blows a bubble with it. You cant blow that big of bubble with a stick of gum... >>

I love how they drew the conclusion that there was a spy in the ambulance from the stick of gum."


my guess is that when they saw the gum they knew something was wrong, because no one has gum in a chinese prison. then there thinking was well it must have come from somewhere, and oh look we have vistors today, thus they thought something was up with the visitors. so they did what they did without thinking about the word spy.

 

[NakaNaka]

<< I thought Behind Enemy Lines was a pretty good movie, even if it wasn't realistic...

Why do people do that so much?
I think Hackers and Antitrust are both pretty good movies, even though the technical details are so terrible any first year CS student could pick out flaws. But they are still good movies.

I'm sure that Behind Enemy Lines wasn't technically perfect, but it was still a pretty enjoyable movie (much better that spy game, which I thought had no plot at all, even for just an action movie, with actors like Brad Pitt, and Robert Redford I expect better). >>



Actually Antitrust even though it was not realistic was much more realistic than Hackers. Atleast it had commands and shiz in there Hackers was so graphical and pure Hollywood.

 

[kamiam]

<< Was the room a SCIF? >>

don't know what that one is, but in my day tactical info was generated in CIC or combat information center, where I worked in during my stay aboard a carrier, in the early 80's, I was an electronic warfare tech, or EW-3 for short

 

[RgrPark]

I loved the part where 3 choppers are hovering stationary right in front of 1,000,000,000 nme tanks and armored vehicles, who can't seem to do a damned thing but get blown up...

Movie was fun and it should be categorized with movies like "Rambo" and "Commando" rather than with the likes of Private Ryan and others.
Oh yeah i loved how he set off about 1k landmines and got away with no scratches... even Rambo took a shrap somewhere and had to operate on himself in Rambo 3 somwhere.

Blackhawk down is way more realistic than that. They actually took a platoon from a Ranger Unit to be cast as extras for the movie, which will result in a much more realistic atmosphere. You won't (hopefully not) see any random soldiers in the movie doing somethng totally untactical/stupid...

 

[abc]

for me, i wondered why it wouldn't be more likely that search teams would have sniffer dogs with them, and yeah in the final seen, going back for the film and not get shot? and all those tanks didn't even blow 1 of 3 choppers out of the sky? I dunno I still liked the movie and found it engaging but then at the same time i felt that in the year 2001 of movie making can't there be less of 'oh please how could that' etc. feeling.

i also would have liked to have seen 1 night scene, i mean unless he was only running around for 1/2 a day?