• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Main Thing That Ruined "Pearl Harbor" for Me...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The previews ruined it for me......

I was in the Corps when this came out and me and 4 or 5 of my guy friends thought it was going to be some badass war movie so we went to see it. Needless to say we were the only guys there without dates.... it was totally gay (not in the dick in your butt kind of way but in the figurative way).... that movie blows....

P.S. Ben Affleck sucks ass... hairy man ass
 
techs said:
The military flaw is they showed the torpedoes with the add on wooden fins and the fins stayed on the torpedos all the way to the ships.

In fact, the wooden fins were designed to only keep the torpedo from going to far down on initial contact with the water, preventing them from hitting the ocean floor. They fins were designed to break off when they hit the water.
Click to expand...

i thought they showed them breaking off... that's what i remembered.
 
Numenorean said:
I stopped taking that seriously once I got to this line:

"However, did he has to make cut backs in the physic plausibility?"

At that point, I don't think whoever wrote it is intelligent enough to be an sort of authority on physics.
Click to expand...

you don't have to be a good at english in order to be good at physics.

anyways, do this test. bring a trashcan out and put it on the side of your street. drive by it and throw something straight out of your window, directly at the trashcan, as you pass it. see if it actually hits it or keeps going at the same speed and direction you're going until it hits the ground.

if you want to make it hit the trash can, you'll have to throw it out of the window a few feet sooner because it will continue at the speed at which you're driving.
 
mugs said:
I'm pretty sure they just watched Tora! Tora! Tora! and copied it nearly scene for scene with the exception of the added love story in Pearl Harbor.

Isn't eits the guy who was pissed off that Ice Age 3's subtitle wasn't scientifically accurate? What an odd fellow.
Click to expand...

lol, yeah that was me. kids shouldn't be taught that dinos lived during the ice age. however, in my defense, i didn't know that they addressed that in the movie. i didn't see it.
 
bobross419 said:
The previews ruined it for me......

I was in the Corps when this came out and me and 4 or 5 of my guy friends thought it was going to be some badass war movie so we went to see it. Needless to say we were the only guys there without dates.... it was totally gay (not in the dick in your butt kind of way but in the figurative way).... that movie blows....

P.S. Ben Affleck sucks ass... hairy man ass
Click to expand...

lol!
 
eits said:
lol, yeah that was me. kids shouldn't be taught that dinos lived during the ice age. however, in my defense, i didn't know that they addressed that in the movie. i didn't see it.
Click to expand...

Kids also shouldn't be taught that you can cure someone's sniffles by giving them a back massage.
 
OP, are you kidding - you only noticed that one horrible example of poor physics during that scene? How about all the bullets that look like sparklers when they hit the ceiling in the bridge? etc. The plot sucked, the actors sucked, and what would normally be the only redeeming feature in such a movie - the special effects - sucked donkey balls.

It's sort of like the Titanic movie - the movie sucked, but the sinking was awesome. (Then again, maybe I was biased, because by that point in that movie, I was rooting for the North Atlantic.)
 
The photography was excellent. Kate was hot. And the dogfighting looked great. Reminded me of the gun camera footage.
 
I think what ruined that film for me was that it was overly long, that the primary focus was a love story, that the battle occupied so little of the film, that it was historically inaccurate, that it violated physics, and that the story was muddled and infuriating even outside the context of a film that was trying to pretend to be something it wasn't (a war movie, in this case). I got the Blu-ray for free when I bought my PlayStation 3, and I'm still angry that I actually sat through the whole film in the hopes that the battle would redeem it. It did not.
 
the carrier based bombers in WWII also almost exclusively dropped their bombs from a near-vertical dive. of course the movie got that part wrong too
 
There should be forward movement by the bomb, but this is very hard to simulate. Clearly with fins and all, it's front heavy, so air resistance should play a huge role as the bomb simply stalls and angles down and starts dropping like a bowling ball. The forward movement would still exist though.. but would it be at the same say.. 150kts the plane was going at? Maybe initially, but like I said unless someone has a serious air flow model, I think we're all guessing.

If you watch the movie, it shows that the bomb moves from near center to closer to the bow of the ship. It's certainly not enough forward velocity... but meh. Who cares?
 
Tora Tora Tora is indeed good, but flawed or not most have gone on the record to say Pearl Harbor is the best reinaction to date of the attack.
 
The Japanese. If it weren't for the Japanese, Pearl Harbor would have been such a nice place in the '40s.
 
Sweet Bay style actions scenes, but the rest of that movie was just garbage. The descent of the bombs was your major beef? Yikes.
 
ShockwaveVT said:
the carrier based bombers in WWII also almost exclusively dropped their bombs from a near-vertical dive. of course the movie got that part wrong too
Click to expand...

Most did, but this was an exception. The bomb that blew up the Arizona was dropped from a plane flying horizontally, the bomb was a specially modified 16inch shell.
 
I want to one day make a film where the story is actually serious but everything technical is believable to the masses but impossible/incorrect according to physics and real operations just to piss you guys off.

ie: "Airbus 747's" doing short taking offs from KJFK with '25% push over power' from a 1000' strip with 15mph tailwind heading in direction 380 to flight level 47000 in zulu class airspace and calling ground control that we've already taken off with VFR flight rules with what appears to be point blank visibility then running out of fuel over Puerto Rico and the plane drops straight down like a piano but then at the last 100' actual ground level reserve afterburner kicks in and the plane goes straight back to flight level 47000 in 15 seconds and lands non stop in Seoul with a CNBC crew waiting at the airport.
 
Cast wasn't bad in and of themselves, the writing just sucked. Pretty sure Bay was able to suck every cliche from the last 60 years into that movie. And the action, while entertaining, was completely full of stupid.

Also, IMO any war movie concerning a specific event like that has some obligation to include realism. Especially if it's supposed to depict said event as opposed to historical fiction. Bay threw that out the window.

Tora! Tora! Tora!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top