F-35 shows up in new movie

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post25 Nov 2010, 11:50

You'd think that the models would have been bought online from an enthusiast (who would get it right), then beefed up a little for the movie...
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4726
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Nov 2010, 17:29

Models of what? They are all CGI.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post26 Nov 2010, 02:14

SpudmanWP wrote:Models of what? They are all CGI.


Objects created in 3D modelling and rendering software are called "models".

There are many sites online where you can buy reasonably detailed 3D models. They cost around $400 for the good ones.

If they had've bought one of the good ones, they could be assured it was correct ... a lot of love goes into making them.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4726
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Nov 2010, 06:27

I figured that, I just doubt they "beefed" it up and got the whole A/B/C thing wrong.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Smithsguy

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2005, 19:04

Unread post04 Jun 2012, 21:28

Speaking of getting the CGI wrong - the Avengers had a F-35 with a) wrong doors and b) two guns. I guess they borrowed the CAD model from Die Hard IV eh? /sigh
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post04 Jun 2012, 22:10

There was something even weirder about that movie's aircraft. They had that STOVL or VTOL light transport thing which doesn't correspond to anything we've invented yet, and the flying aircraft carrier which can turn invisible and doesn't correspond to anything we've invented yet, so along with the F-35Bs they're clearly going for a futuristic feel overall... but their STOVL combat planes included a mix of F-35Bs and... Harriers?!
Offline

HaveVoid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Jun 2012, 01:12

Was I the only one who thought he saw Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets in that film as well?
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post05 Jun 2012, 05:46

That VTOL transport the heroes were constantly riding around in were a very well done adaptation of the Quinjets from the comics. http://marvel.wikia.com/Quinjet

I do believe I saw some Alpha Jets in the movie too.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jun 2012, 06:23

Best description for the process I've seen so far:

I often bitterly complain about the lack of scientific accuracy in TV and movie SF shows. Todd Boyce of Ninja Magic actually works in Hollywood, and explained to me the facts of life about media SF:

?
To boil down all the possible reasons, it is because of one or more of the following:

0) It's a business
This is a business venture - you put money in with the expectation that more money will come out. The general audience is historically happier watching space ships woosh by shooting glowing bolts of energy than they are watching a slowly rotating spaceship lazily drift across the screen. If you're putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go for the shooty-wooshy space ships every time, pure and simple.

1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.
If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.

2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies
Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.

3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.
A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects.

The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot.

The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production.

The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship.

The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.

(You're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time.)

4) The script-reader's gauntlet
Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can.

People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.

5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.
It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.

6) The power of ego
You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment?

What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.

I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.

I'm not kidding.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post05 Jun 2012, 06:45

Damn, are we bored up in here or what? Nothing big has been happening with the F-35 for awhile now (good or bad) and now we've been reduced to talking about:

1. F-35's nuclear delivery options (ok, that was actually fun).

2. F-35's anti-ship options (well, that was fun too).

3. Every pilot getting to putter around in a very restricted flight envelope at Eglin for training.

4. F-35's role in recent movies.

Come-on LM, let's see some weapon drops already. Would it kill you to do something ahead of schedule for once?
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2054
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post06 Jun 2012, 00:09

jeffb - so, he was working on that 2012 movie, then?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post06 Jun 2012, 00:44

Sorry, forgot to credit the quote. It comes from here:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... mnotes.php
So your guess is as good as mine.

I liked that 2012 movie though. Nice, straight, extra large popcorn and slurpie waste of an hour and a half with half the planet sliding into an abyss. Like Earthquake, Towering inferno and Poseidon adventure rolled into one. I particularly liked the An-225 bits, who'd have thought that a 285+ tonne plane could be that maneuverable. :lol:

I think Smithsguy got it right when he said that there is probably just this one generic blurred together F-35A/B/C CGI model with cannon mounted in the intakes doing the rounds of the studios and movies at the moment. There's no point re-inventing the wheel so they just keep reusing that same model.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post06 Jun 2012, 01:06

Speaking of maneuverable transports...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZGXwbPfwQs

It's been posted before but it's always fun to watch again. :D
Offline

raptorpilotwannabe

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 16:49
  • Location: Alaska

Unread post11 Oct 2012, 16:07

I heard the F-35 will show up in the not confirmed movie, Top Gun 2. Tom Cruise might play a test pilot of the 35
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post11 Oct 2012, 16:41

raptorpilotwannabe
I heard the F-35 will show up in the not confirmed movie, Top Gun 2.

Is it wrong that I'm actually looking forward to that movie if/when it comes out? :lol:
Wonder how much directors <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/showbiz/obit-tony-scott/index.html">Tony Scott's tragic suicide</a> might have set back production?
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest