Aircraft mistakes in films
Discussion
Being interested in both film and aviation, I’m always shocked by how little attention film and TV makers take to aviation, they seem to just use any archive footage they find! Often you’ll see someone board a plane with 6 abreast seating such as a 737 or similar, only for them to then use stock footage of a 747 in flight.
Seeing Catch me if you can again few weeks ago, a film in which 60’s aviation takes a big part, in the final scene Hanks and DeCaprio board a Pan Am 707, which then morphs into a 767 when it lands, a plane that was still 10 years away from its first flight when the film as set!!!
Goodfellas is another, it shows footage of a 747 landing in 1963!!
Even the news last night referred to a C17 as a Hercules!! Please tell me, am I being too geeky picking up on these?
Seeing Catch me if you can again few weeks ago, a film in which 60’s aviation takes a big part, in the final scene Hanks and DeCaprio board a Pan Am 707, which then morphs into a 767 when it lands, a plane that was still 10 years away from its first flight when the film as set!!!
Goodfellas is another, it shows footage of a 747 landing in 1963!!
Even the news last night referred to a C17 as a Hercules!! Please tell me, am I being too geeky picking up on these?
Edited by philwhite on Wednesday 19th August 09:20
Probably being a bit geeky - but then, who am I to talk, being a member of the Geek Clan myself (plus having an Honorary Doctorate in Nerdism).
I find it mildly annoying in films where the aircraft is of no major importance to the plot.
If the aircraft is/are central to the story - then they should do their best to get it right. However,I am always prepared to express latitude if the particular aircraft they really should use is no longer available - or the wrong variant has to be used for the same reason. Films like "Battle of Britain", for instance, are not spoiled by the fact that none of the aircraft shown were actually of the right variants.
What annoys me most is when news coverage or documentaries are sloppy as it indicates a lack of care and poor research - which doesn't bode well for other aspects of their film making.
I find it mildly annoying in films where the aircraft is of no major importance to the plot.
If the aircraft is/are central to the story - then they should do their best to get it right. However,I am always prepared to express latitude if the particular aircraft they really should use is no longer available - or the wrong variant has to be used for the same reason. Films like "Battle of Britain", for instance, are not spoiled by the fact that none of the aircraft shown were actually of the right variants.
What annoys me most is when news coverage or documentaries are sloppy as it indicates a lack of care and poor research - which doesn't bode well for other aspects of their film making.
Eric Mc said:
What annoys me most is when news coverage or documentaries are sloppy as it indicates a lack of care and poor research - which doesn't bode well for other aspects of their film making.
Couldn't agree more. Most defence based news stories are completely flawed.On the Hollywood side of things though, it's just to cut costs generally I'd have thought.
AshVX220 said:
Eric Mc said:
What annoys me most is when news coverage or documentaries are sloppy as it indicates a lack of care and poor research - which doesn't bode well for other aspects of their film making.
Couldn't agree more. Most defence based news stories are completely flawed.On the Hollywood side of things though, it's just to cut costs generally I'd have thought.
I guess the Canberras are pretending to be Me 262s!
I had no problem with Tiger Moths and Stampes on both sides in The Blue Max but I recall a film about London towards the end of WWII where the spy dropping aircarft was a Cessna 337. An American production that became a mini series on TV. Robert Mitcham I think........
And how often do you see Routemaster buses on London streets during WWII?
I had no problem with Tiger Moths and Stampes on both sides in The Blue Max but I recall a film about London towards the end of WWII where the spy dropping aircarft was a Cessna 337. An American production that became a mini series on TV. Robert Mitcham I think........
And how often do you see Routemaster buses on London streets during WWII?
52classic said:
And how often do you see Routemaster buses on London streets during WWII?
If they are Routemaster's used then they still bare a good similarity to the AEC and Leyland Titan Double Deckers which the Routemasters replaced. But there are quite a few of the older ones left to be used.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEC_Regent_III_RT
crossle said:
De Havilland Chipmunks used as Stukas, anyone?
What fim was that?I know that some Percival Proctors were adapted to look like Stukas for the film "Battle of Britain". However, they flew so badly it was decided they were too dangerous to use.
Radio controlled models were used in the end - not very convincingly either.
mrmaggit said:
williamp said:
mackie1 said:
Dift said:
Can a MiG 28 do a 4g negative dive?? 
(top gun) Maverick says it can.
It's fictional, so probably (top gun) Maverick says it can.
Eric Mc said:
crossle said:
De Havilland Chipmunks used as Stukas, anyone?
What fim was that?I know that some Percival Proctors were adapted to look like Stukas for the film "Battle of Britain". However, they flew so badly it was decided they were too dangerous to use.
Radio controlled models were used in the end - not very convincingly either.
I'll get my coat...
The "Stukas" were at Bovingdon for a bit, when I were a lad, and my memory had them as Chippies. Google proves me wrong...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff