Devotion
Thread Starter
Devotion
Watched it last night.
Slow, and a bit cheesy, but an interesting story.
Worth it for the real footage of Bearcats, Corsairs, SPADs and other types - top notch.
But why, oh why when they have clearly extensively researched the aircraft and used real ones filmed from a CineJet where possible, do they persist in making some of the flight characteristics in CGI scenes look so naff?
Turns that are way too tight - and the classic `Dunkirk' forever glide...!
Found myself shaking my head and thinking "you did all that work, spent all that money, and then make such rookie errors; that plane just wouldn't move like that..."
And crikey - those are some of the quietest piston engined fighters I've ever heard.
Make it even more compelling! Noisy, bumpy, show me some G and some vortices in turns - they were big, scary aircraft.
Dramatic licence I suppose...
Slow, and a bit cheesy, but an interesting story.
Worth it for the real footage of Bearcats, Corsairs, SPADs and other types - top notch.
But why, oh why when they have clearly extensively researched the aircraft and used real ones filmed from a CineJet where possible, do they persist in making some of the flight characteristics in CGI scenes look so naff?
Turns that are way too tight - and the classic `Dunkirk' forever glide...!
Found myself shaking my head and thinking "you did all that work, spent all that money, and then make such rookie errors; that plane just wouldn't move like that..."
And crikey - those are some of the quietest piston engined fighters I've ever heard.
Make it even more compelling! Noisy, bumpy, show me some G and some vortices in turns - they were big, scary aircraft.
Dramatic licence I suppose...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
The crash glide was filmed for real.
https://www.flightjournal.com/flying...s-hudner-life/
CGI appears to have been used to pad out real formations
https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/vfx-dev...an-war-heroics
https://www.flightjournal.com/flying...s-hudner-life/
Seventy years later, Mike Oliver, pilot and general manager of the terrific Erickson Aircraft Collection in Madras, Oregon, dropped inexorably downward toward the snow-covered Cascade Mountains until the propeller tips of his F4U-7 were feet above icy pine trees.
“The shot was, I get shot down.” Oliver recalls. “I’m smoking, looking for a place to land. I turn base to final, find a place out there in the mountains, roll the canopy back and put the flaps down. I had a camera mount on the tail, so it’s showing that different view. I was sinking, sinking, sinking all the way down to the trees.
“That was a moment where as a pilot, I couldn’t imagine landing in the mountains of North Korea when there are people trying to kill you, let alone the terrain.”
It’s one of the most vivid memories Oliver has of the filming for the new movie “Devotion,” which recently premiered. Based on the book of the same title written by author Adam Makos, it’s the true story of Navy pilots Jesse Brown and Thomas Hudner Jr., their devotion to each other, and their astounding bravery during the Korean War.
“The shot was, I get shot down.” Oliver recalls. “I’m smoking, looking for a place to land. I turn base to final, find a place out there in the mountains, roll the canopy back and put the flaps down. I had a camera mount on the tail, so it’s showing that different view. I was sinking, sinking, sinking all the way down to the trees.
“That was a moment where as a pilot, I couldn’t imagine landing in the mountains of North Korea when there are people trying to kill you, let alone the terrain.”
It’s one of the most vivid memories Oliver has of the filming for the new movie “Devotion,” which recently premiered. Based on the book of the same title written by author Adam Makos, it’s the true story of Navy pilots Jesse Brown and Thomas Hudner Jr., their devotion to each other, and their astounding bravery during the Korean War.
CGI appears to have been used to pad out real formations
https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/vfx-dev...an-war-heroics
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd Mar 2023 at 01:04.
Thread Starter
Interesting.
That said - it was prolonged by editing much more than it would have been in real life - had it taken place at the altitude and speed shown.
Some of the CGI dogfight scenes were pretty ropey... but I note they also used a real MiG for the lead up to the shootdown sequence.
That said - it was prolonged by editing much more than it would have been in real life - had it taken place at the altitude and speed shown.
Some of the CGI dogfight scenes were pretty ropey... but I note they also used a real MiG for the lead up to the shootdown sequence.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Director Dillard pledged to have as many scenes as possible shot “in camera,” as they say, rather than cobbled together with CGI. But CGI is so convincing now you sometimes can’t distinguish between computer graphics and real practical shots. The Bearcat scenes were real shots in trail of the CineJet, a camera-equipped L-39. A Phenom 300 was also used. In-cockpit Bearcat shots, which are equally convincing, were shot as they were in Top Gun Maverick, with the actor in the back of a two-seater. Some CGI is used in some scenes, but it’s stitched in seamlessly.
I’m not sure how many F4Us were used, but spy reports said at least three, plus the Mig used in the air-to-air combat clip. CGI was used to add more aircraft to some scenes and this is where the lure of Hollywood proved irresistible. If you can add a section of four, why not 12? Or 20? So they did. The same thing happened in the original Korean war epic, The Bridges at Toko-Ri. The Navy cooperated fully on that film and noted to the director that it didn’t actually do dive bombing attacks in large formations. The director said they had shot scenes that way since Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels in 1930. Evidently, they still do.
But it’s a minor ding. The glitzy effects don’t overrun Devotion’s storyline and in most of it, they enhance it. For example, for all the great practical footage of jet traps used in Toko-Ri, one thing not evident was that those guys were landing on a straight-deck carrier, often into a barrier. In Devotion, the Corsair traps are all CGI and thus the camera can be behind the airplane. You can see that it’s landing into a barrier with aircraft spotted forward. In those days, a bolter was an iffy thing and a lot of them ended up in the barrier or upended in parked aircraft.
I’m not sure how many F4Us were used, but spy reports said at least three, plus the Mig used in the air-to-air combat clip. CGI was used to add more aircraft to some scenes and this is where the lure of Hollywood proved irresistible. If you can add a section of four, why not 12? Or 20? So they did. The same thing happened in the original Korean war epic, The Bridges at Toko-Ri. The Navy cooperated fully on that film and noted to the director that it didn’t actually do dive bombing attacks in large formations. The director said they had shot scenes that way since Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels in 1930. Evidently, they still do.
But it’s a minor ding. The glitzy effects don’t overrun Devotion’s storyline and in most of it, they enhance it. For example, for all the great practical footage of jet traps used in Toko-Ri, one thing not evident was that those guys were landing on a straight-deck carrier, often into a barrier. In Devotion, the Corsair traps are all CGI and thus the camera can be behind the airplane. You can see that it’s landing into a barrier with aircraft spotted forward. In those days, a bolter was an iffy thing and a lot of them ended up in the barrier or upended in parked aircraft.
The following users liked this post:
Watched it last night.
Slow, and a bit cheesy, but an interesting story.
Worth it for the real footage of Bearcats, Corsairs, SPADs and other types - top notch.
But why, oh why when they have clearly extensively researched the aircraft and used real ones filmed from a CineJet where possible, do they persist in making some of the flight characteristics in CGI scenes look so naff?
Turns that are way too tight - and the classic `Dunkirk' forever glide...!
Found myself shaking my head and thinking "you did all that work, spent all that money, and then make such rookie errors; that plane just wouldn't move like that..."
And crikey - those are some of the quietest piston engined fighters I've ever heard.
Make it even more compelling! Noisy, bumpy, show me some G and some vortices in turns - they were big, scary aircraft.
Dramatic licence I suppose...
Slow, and a bit cheesy, but an interesting story.
Worth it for the real footage of Bearcats, Corsairs, SPADs and other types - top notch.
But why, oh why when they have clearly extensively researched the aircraft and used real ones filmed from a CineJet where possible, do they persist in making some of the flight characteristics in CGI scenes look so naff?
Turns that are way too tight - and the classic `Dunkirk' forever glide...!
Found myself shaking my head and thinking "you did all that work, spent all that money, and then make such rookie errors; that plane just wouldn't move like that..."
And crikey - those are some of the quietest piston engined fighters I've ever heard.
Make it even more compelling! Noisy, bumpy, show me some G and some vortices in turns - they were big, scary aircraft.
Dramatic licence I suppose...
Unfortunately, mis-referencing the Able Dogs leaves me no choice but to rate your review as only 3/10 stars.
Thread Starter
The scenes on the carrier deck, with no wind blowing, also seemed a little bit off.
Still, the majority watching the film probably wouldn't notice, would they?
There's an interesting article on 'making of' in Flypast magazine this month.
Still, the majority watching the film probably wouldn't notice, would they?
There's an interesting article on 'making of' in Flypast magazine this month.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Well as they built the carrier on a runway, they might have had problems getting it under steam.. 
The following users liked this post:
mis-referencing the Able Dogs leaves me no choice but to rate your review as only 3/10 stars
Edit: Bit of research finds that the AD-1 Skyraider designation was assigned in February 1946, the designation was changed to A-1 on 11 September 1962 under the new unified Department of Defense system in which Navy and Air Force aircraft were designated according to the same scheme. From that my take is Able Dog became Spad on the change over of designation, always known as Spad to us in Vietnam.
Last edited by megan; 3rd Mar 2023 at 13:04.
However, reviewing the minutiae of your movie review was both in jest and and my tactic to avoid critiquing the movie itself while still scratching every pilot's itch to get pedantic re Hollywood portrayals of aviation/aviators which, as we know, can be a rabbit hole of inaccuracies, absurdities, and inanities leading to a pit of frustration and despair so deep we can't enjoy the show even if gratuitous nudity is included. I've been there, but nowadays if the producers show they've made a decent attempt to achieve a somewhat accurate portrayal of equipment, dialogue, and demeanor that's an OK pass as far as I'm concerned. That way, I can watch and enjoy the Bearcats, Corsairs, SPADS (see?...itch scratched!) and pucker at the thought of icy straight decks without getting fussed.
Yes, it's axiomatic that we in this profession occupy the center of the Universe, but once while drinking my mind wandered and it occurred to me that there might be others and their professions also portrayed inaccurately in movies. For instance, civilian Bomb Squad guys. Bomb Squads, in reality highly-trained and dedicated experts, may actually suffer the very worst movie treatment. Here's why:
1) Most of the time the" Bomb Squad" isn't even there, reduced to a mere plot device reference that isn't able to show up in time to do their jobs whereupon the protagonist(s) must carry out the task for them. The Bomb Squad's presence is of such low importance that their absence is required. Not being there is essential to the story. The studio doesn't even have to hire extras, let alone actors, to portray them. Movie Bomb Squads are so out-of-position so much of the time whenever there's a movie bomb needing to be defuzed they may as well not even exist. At least in an aviation movie the pilot has to be be there even if it is only to die in order for a Flight Attendant or passenger to land the plane, which leads us to...
2) A good percentage of those movie-bomb defuzings are carried out by rank amateurs, not even slick James Bond or Yipee ki yay Die Hard amateurs. Why even have a squad of professional bomb disposal experts sitting on alert somewhere always too far away, ready to jump into their too-sluggish Bomb Squad van, when a voice at the other end of a phone can simply tell the shaking waitress which wire to the detonator needs cutting to stop the clock before time runs out? Speaking of which...
3) When a rank amateur snips the wire to save the day, the detonator countdown always stops somewhere between 4 and .4 seconds. Likewise, when a James Bondy amateur snips the wire, yep, the countdown clock stops somewhere between 4 and .4 seconds. In the unlikely event they do portray a Bomb Squad guy who got to work on time, when he snips the wire a couple of things could happen depending whether it's a movie about a Bomb Squad and/or how close to the end of the movie the snipping occurs; a) the countdown will temporarily stop with a large amount of time remaining only to suddenly restart and blow everything to hell because the sinister bomb-maker is smarter than your average Bomb Squad guy, or b) he snips the wire and saves the day with somewhere between 4 and .4 seconds remaining. However you slice it, the deactivation occurs at the last gasping moment.
Now imagine you're a highly-trained, honest-to-goodness Bomb Squad expert getting your hopes up every time you see a movie where a bomb that needs deactivating comes into play. You sit there hoping that you might see an accurate depiction of what you do, a time to shine. What do you get instead? Well, usually you're a no-show and amateurs wind up becoming heros doing your job for you, and if by some miracle you do show it's either to stuff it up completely or do the job but not any quicker than the amateurs already on the scene could have managed. I'm guessing, but I think a true portrayal when compared to amateurs who manage to stop a detonator countdown at 2 seconds would be a Bomb Squad expert looking at that same device for a 2 seconds then" snip snip" it's deactivated faster than you can say "vasectomy" with a comfortable 20 minutes left on the countdown clock. Which brings up who's probably portrayed as being the most inept in movies....
The guy who sets the movie detonator countdown clocks always dials in too much time by 5 seconds. Time after time, even the evil geniuses get it wrong and seeing it again and again must drive their real-life counterparts nuts.
So compared to some portrayals, we pilots don't have it so bad and it could be a lot worse.
Last edited by PukinDog; 3rd Mar 2023 at 20:38.
The aircraft went by both names, always referred to as Spad in Vietnam, Able Dog was new to me, but comes from the old phonetic language and the aircraft's designation AD-(model number). When did the two names come into being? The USN museum notes both names but not era of use.
Edit: Bit of research finds that the AD-1 Skyraider designation was assigned in February 1946, the designation was changed to A-1 on 11 September 1962 under the new unified Department of Defense system in which Navy and Air Force aircraft were designated according to the same scheme. From that my take is Able Dog became Spad on the change over of designation, always known as Spad to us in Vietnam.
Edit: Bit of research finds that the AD-1 Skyraider designation was assigned in February 1946, the designation was changed to A-1 on 11 September 1962 under the new unified Department of Defense system in which Navy and Air Force aircraft were designated according to the same scheme. From that my take is Able Dog became Spad on the change over of designation, always known as Spad to us in Vietnam.
Quite right. It was a case of the old phonetic sticking as a fitting nickname due the capabilities and positive attributes proven during Korea serving as the Navy's main workhorse.
My post was in jest (too obtuse and lame I admit) aimed at our natural pilot tendencies that lead us to over-dissect flaws in aviation movies, and this was a movie set during Korea. My pedantry was feigned and I'm perfectly OK with SPADS in Korea as long as there can be Able Dogs in Vietnam. Best news is, we don't even have set up different bathrooms for them.
Thread Starter
And I learned something too... thank you.
Interestingly though - by comparison, went to watch Top Gun Maverick with very low expectations - and came away a thoroughly satisfied aviation geek.
A lot of cheese - heaps of it - but surprisingly myriads of tiny details absolutely correct.
The plasma around Dark Star's airframe as it approached Mach 10.
The sly nod to SR-71 breakups and Yeager's bailout from the NF-104 as a charred Mav walked into the cafe in middle America.
The fuses sequence in the F-14.
And the sounds during the carrier ballet at the start - the clunk of chains, woosh of catapults - really brought home that a carrier deck truly is one of the most hazardous workplaces there is.
Although I enjoyed the plank wing sequences and the fact that it’s base on a true story, for me it was the helo. “The Sikorsky HO3S Helicopter that was used in the filming of the movie is the oldest flying helicopter in the world and the only HO3S in flyable condition. “
Having watched it, I was puzzled by the problems they were having landing the Corsair due to its long nose blocking the view on the straight in approach. Didn't we; ie the Royal Navy, show the USN how to make a curving approach during WW2?
Corsair handling
of course by Korea all this would have been sorted. The book is first rate (a bit of a slow start) but the actual main part regarding the forced landing and the following intentional belly landing is incredible., as was the helicopter support by a machine with very limited performance.
Several USN squadrons, including Tom Blackburn’s VF-17, had already carried qualified in Corsairs before the Royal Navy.
Maybe, but I'm sure that I read that the USN/Marines had problems operating it from carriers until the RN showed them how to solve the problems.