Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The CORE

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Jason_CFI

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Posts
21
Anyone seen this film yet?

I am still laughing . . .

In the beginning of the movie, the space shuttle reenters the atmosphere but finds themselves off course, by 150-200 miles over the Los Angeles area.

So the first officer (Hillary Swank) pulls out a tri-fold kneeboard with an aeronautical chart for the Los Angels airspace already conveniently folded and ready for use.

Why was this chart pre-prepared? No one expected that they would find themselves hundreds of miles off course over Los Angeles!

It was all just rather convenient and made me laugh, of course, no one else in the theater could figure out why I was.

Feel free to point out anything else, because there are plenty!

Jason
 
Why would someone pay money to see this film in the first place. I thought B-movies were supposed to be run on TNT and TBS on weekday afternoons.
 
In "Catch Me If You Can", Leanardo DiCaprio is flying into New York, and points out "There it is... (JFK or LGA, I forget which), runway forty four."
Of course when I pointed out to my wife that was a mistake, she argued it wasn't a big deal.
 
AmI mistaken???

Am I mistaken on this one? I forget what era the movie takes place in, but I see JFK's "4L" and "4R" are both oriented 044.1 magnetic. Did they ever assign runways there full magnetic orientation rather than rounding them off? If the runway was actually "044" then calling it "runway forty four" is a lot more feasible.
 
Given that Frank Abagnale was posing as a pilot and was an imposter, a high level of ignorance would be expected, right?
 
Jason_CFI said:
...made me laugh, of course, no one else in the theater could figure out why I was.
I was laughing when I saw the previews. The Space Shuttle stuff looked bad, really bad. Maybe if you look hard enough, you can see the strings...

I wish I could remember where I saw an article recently...I think it was in the current issue of Air Line Pilot. At any rate, the article was written by the author of several books on General Doolittle's raid on Tokyo. He was invited to witness the filming of Ben Afleck's Pearl Harbor, and was shocked at just how little the Hollywood people care about historical accuracy. The director told him flat out, "hey, I'm not making a documentary."

No, but don't they realize that the real story is just as entertaining--if not more so--than their silly fiction?

British aviation films like The Dam Busters might not be as exciting as Armageddon, but dammit, they're real!

P.S. Has anybody else been emailed the footage from Armageddon of a Shuttle blowing up and been told it's long-range imagery of the Columbia disaster? Sick...
 
Re: Re: The CORE

Typhoon1244 said:
P.S. Has anybody else been emailed the footage from Armageddon of a Shuttle blowing up and been told it's long-range imagery of the Columbia disaster? Sick...


Yes. Idiots.
 
I didn't think the movie was that bad. Of course, I just went expecting entertainment, not space shuttle flying instruction.
 
skydiverdriver said:
I didn't think the movie was that bad. Of course, I just went expecting entertainment, not space shuttle flying instruction.
:D Point taken. But speaking for myself as a pilot, I'm more entertained by factual (or at least plausible) airplane stories than by some Hollywood fairy tale.

Oh, if you change your mind and are interested in Space Shuttle instruction, P.M. Mister Concorde. I'll bet he can hook you up...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top