RyzenRaider t1_jcwpp4h wrote

I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable. I did some googling, but some of this stuff is simple strategy. The worst possible position to be in is to have an enemy directly on your 6. You have no offense and the enemy has every advantage and a perfect position to shoot you down... Despite that, both pilots make that happen. It does give a sense of tactics in the moment though, with each pilot fighting for advantage in dynamic and interesting ways. It's just not realistic in the slightest.

Regarding the bomb run itself, time is supposedly their greatest enemy... They have to push 500-600 knots through this narrow range. Why? Fly slower, a little safer, and just launch the missiles from the carrier a little later. All that matters is that the airfield gets hit just before they bomb the facility. But flying faster is cooler, so that's what they go for.

So again, still a fun movie. But best not to think too hard about the realism :)


RyzenRaider t1_jcwhees wrote

Much of the actual aviation is deeply flawed. The trench run is just one aspect.

Maverick pulls up to avoid a missile in the dogfight. Airspeed and energy is king in a dogfight, so why give it all up going vertical? He fires flares (good) then splits the throttles to turn around. Possible in an F-14, but also prone to putting it into a flatspin, which is what killed Goose in the first movie.

He gets behind the Su-57, but how? Why the actual fuck did the Su57 not follow Maverick, and instead flew in a straight line so that Maverick could get behind him? Not even a rookie mistake, that's grossly negligent. Maverick fires a missile, Su57 cartwheels out of the way. The plane can actually pull that maneuver, but again, energy is king in a dogfight, and he just threw it all away. It also doesn't do anything to confuse a missile, as it will still track the heat source (the plane's surfaces are still much hotter than the air, so it still has a clear signature). And Maverick makes the not-even-a-rookie mistake, flying directly straight as the Su-57 tucks in behind him. Even if Maverick was surprised - and he shouldn't have been... Russian planes have been able to pull these moves for some time now - he should at least instinctively know to change direction just to avoid the enemy getting right behind him. In fact, if there was ever a good time to fly straight up, that would have been it... The Su-57 would have been so slow, it would have struggled to gain altitude to pursue, and so Mav has time to reposition and re-engage.

Su-57 can't get a lock on the F-14 in the canyon because of the terrain, but Maverick can immediately lock on the Su-57, which has some stealth capability? Okey dokey. And so on, and so on...

There is SO much to pick apart in the movie about the way flying and combat are depicted. Throughout the training, all the way to the final dogfight.

But despite all that, it's still a kick ass, adrenaline-fueled ride. And that's all the filmmakers are asking you to accept.


RyzenRaider t1_jacvd2t wrote

To me, it compares to the nature of their misdeeds and how much they contributed to the art form. I'll discard a shitweasel that has no talent pretty easily. It gets harder when they have amazing or unique talent, because they can offer you an experience or connection that is rare. At that point, it becomes harder to justify supporting them on rational terms.

Kevin Spacey is a fine actor, and very charismatic. But I don't think he pushed the medium in any new direction, so I don't feel all that bad or any great loss about not watching his films.

My moral dilemma is with Mel Gibson. He's an all time great movie star, an amazing actor and a fantastic director. He's also racist, sexist and antisemitic. His outbursts captured on tape are some of the most vile things you'll hear a human being say. But to play devil's advocate, he's also diagnosed with bipolar and has an extensive history of alcohol addiction. So he's prone to poor judgment and wild or unpredictable mood swings, which can include rage. Those outbursts are not necessarily things he's fully in control of. But these are also outbursts that have a continuity over time.

So with Mel, he's an amazing contributor to movie history. He's a rare breed of star, he can play any genre effortlessly, and he's made as a director one of the most truly adrenaline-pumping movies I've ever seen (Apocalypto). I want to keep watching his work. But he's acted abhorrently on several occasions, that I do wonder if I should support his work. The best way I can reconcile it is that he's not always well, and should give him some consideration due to his mental illness. He's also not taken his actions beyond words (to my knowledge). So he's no Kevin Spacey/Cosby/Weinstein with a deliberate, systematic approach to physical abuse.

I think I do draw a hard line at anyone who engages in deliberate victimization/exploitation. Predators targeting people with less power than themselves can just fuck right off.


RyzenRaider t1_jacp9rp wrote

History Buffs (good YT channel) covered this years ago.

Ultimately, as long as there are no discernible words, I don't see a problem with it. It would be weird if the germanic tribe was speaking Zulu, but the chant is just intended to be intimidating in both cases.

EDIT: Just found an example of a recycled effect that irrationally annoys me in movies. This wooden door sound is forever associated with Diablo in my mind, but keep hearing it throughout a surprising number of movies. The Wilhelm scream is amusing, I don't mind it. But this one just sounds lazy, like no one's recorded a new door sound in at least 20 years.



RyzenRaider t1_ja88zpl wrote

Cloud Atlas deserves a mention. It's a bit hit and miss, but I love it for being so audacious, and succeeding a lot of the time.

Everything Everywhere All at Once. The first film that I'd seen since Eternal Sunshine that gave me similar 'this is weird and nonsensical, but completely makes sense' vibes.


RyzenRaider t1_ja5a01k wrote

You didn't miss something about the trailer, the trailer missed something about the movie. The film isn't an action comedy. It's a great, dark comedy drama.

I was also disappointed by the movie on first viewing because I was expecting an action comedy, but revisiting it years later with no incorrect expectations allowed me to appreciate the movie for what it actually is, and not for what it was marketed as.


RyzenRaider t1_j6c2su1 wrote

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Most people who've seen it like it, but

Inspired casting against type, making Jim Carrey an introvert and Kate Winslet the wild extrovert. And they both nail it.

The movie is completely bonkers, but logical within the weird rules it establishes.

Behind all the zany effects and weird scenes, it's ultimately grounded by a real, truthful emotional core.

It has a bit of every genre in it. Drama, comedy, romance, sci-fi, even a bit of horror here and there.


RyzenRaider t1_j66g2cm wrote

It's also pretty zany and seemingly random at times. Some people just don't want that in their movies. Some just want easy to digest entertainment, and this movie does get pretty densely packed, requiring concentration to digest it. My parents didn't like it.

I loved it for the very reasons they didn't.

So I get the reaction, even I think they're missing out on so much of the film as a result. In fact, I don't personally know anyone that liked EEAaO, which is also true for The Batman. It's weird, because I used to share a lot of common favorite movies with friends and family, and then a fairly sudden divergence across genres.


RyzenRaider t1_j5bt2rx wrote

This is the example I was going to us.

I actually do like the directors cut, it's a bit more true to the low budget, gritty 70s crime thriller genre.

Having said that, I think the best version of Payback would combine elements from both cuts. Kris Kristofferson is definitely the more interesting villain, but I prefer the more natural colours of the directors cut. Music from theatrical cut, but I kinda like the original ending, where Porter just keeps getting shot.


RyzenRaider t1_j2c7tm7 wrote

As per u/Papaofmonsters, Schulz saves the first batch of slaves, and Django doesn't actually do anything extra to save the slaves near the end.

Tarantino opens the cage and throws some dynamite in with the slaves. He does then reach for the cage door before it cuts to him picking up the next batch of dynamite. After Django then kills everyone, he approaches the cage and the door is still open. He needed to kill the slavers to get away, so he doesn't get abolitionist points for that. And he didn't open the door for them, because Tarantino's character didn't actually lock it before he died.


RyzenRaider t1_j2bv5gc wrote

I don't think he was an abolitionist. He shows no intent or desire to free other slaves at any point of the film, and the film ends on a happy note when he's finally reunited with Broomhilda. That's all he wanted.

He does come back and kill the last people associated with making Broomhilda suffer, but that's part of the revenge plot. Revenge is about satisfying a selfish desire for justice, and not justice for the community. So he didn't do it to free the other slaves on the plantation, he did it to get them back for harming him and his wife.


RyzenRaider t1_j1tysv8 wrote

Haven't seen the sequel, but in the first film, the hero is the child of an illegal immigrant, the American family is shallow and ignorant (no one knows where Marta is from), one of the kids is identified as an alt-right troll and is mocked for it. Don Johnson's character seems to be a Trump supporter/sympathizer, justifying Trump's border cage policies. Not to mention, the illegal immigrant wins everything in the will and leaves the family with nothing... That could spark some BS great replacement discussion lol.

Having said that, Toni Collette's character comes across as a democrat liberal, who is only interested in virtue signalling about refugee rights, even though she clearly has no interest in Marta, has no original thoughts of her own, is a shallow influencer and is a leech on the rest of the family's finances. So it's not a black-and-white "Conservatives bad!" movie.

But this works in your favour. Because if it does annoy them, you can then counter argue that the film also opposes centralist liberals, and then it's harder for them to justify their dislike of the movie. Just adds a little trolling flavour.


RyzenRaider t1_iycf48m wrote

It's a quirk of the Bechdel test. Great movies, even feminist films can fail the test. It's more a measure of the industry over time, and how much variety and depth exists within female roles.

I believe Aliens and T2 - both classic feminist films - fail the test. Aliens is debatable, based on how you define the dialog requirement (Ripley talks to the marines about aliens, Vasquez says she just needs to know where they are, but Ripley doesn't really respond to this. So Ripley was talking to the group and didn't reciprocate Vasquez). Newt doesn't count because she's considered a child rather than a woman).


RyzenRaider t1_iyc7cs7 wrote

Everything Everywhere All at Once might fail it. Most of the characters only talk to Evelyn or Joy, so most male interactions don't pass the 2nd point. There's a dirty laundromat customer that talks about his wife's perfume. Waymond talks to Joy and Evelyn, but I don't think he exchanges dialogue (meaning each says something to the other in a conversation) with Gong Gong.

The other jumpers don't talk to each other either either. I might be missing a small moment, but I don't think the movie passes.


RyzenRaider t1_iy5dwvr wrote

First, anyone saying that all effects must be practical is just as head scratching as saying that all effects must be CG. Both are highly limiting. There are things CG does very well, such as wire removal. There are ways to obfuscate wires, but there are plenty of older movies where you can see wires being used.

A technology that blurs the line between the two is the volume, made famous by Mandolorian. The environment is rendered in CG to large LED panels, but this provides practical visuals for the actor, and interactive lighting to ensure the actors blend into the scene correctly (as opposed to green screen). No postproduction work is needed. So is this practical because it happens on set and everyone can see it, and no post is required? Or is it CG because it was ultimately generated by a computer?

But if you're looking for films that minimize digital effects, Predestination is a recent scifi movie that fits your bill. There are some effects, but it's just for setting the location (set in New York, but shot in Australia). The sci-fi elements such as time travel are actually done with just simple cuts, rather than any flashy CG lightning, etc.

And in terms of how will it make people feel to see real effects again? Look at Top Gun Maverick. Yes, many of the shots feature CG planes, but you can see the reality of the actors flying low and fast over terrain, the rotating lighting as the plane banks, the g-forces, etc. People loved the shit out of it because it did make the film feel more immersive.