So I have watched both Tora! Tora! Tora! and Battle of Midway years ago on multiple occasions but the time apart was pretty great. Recently I just watched both films again one after another, now I suddenly realized while both films were classic and great, they in fact had some "cheap" shots. There were a few exactly same scenes being used in both movies. 1. The scene of a B-17 landed with just one landing gear, 2. and the scene with a jeep turned over, 3. as well as the scene with a heroic sailor on land with torn shirt shooting at Japanese planes right beside a burning B-17. Although I have heard that the B-17 landing scene was in fact real, it was just a real incident captured by cameraman then it was used in the films, I think it's a let down to have same scenes in more than one movie. Don't you agree?
I don't think it's that big of a deal, it's really expensive to shoot scenes like that. It's better to have copy pasted action scenes than no action scenes at all!
Yeah shooting scenes with planes is way too expensive, specially during those Tora! Tora! Tora! days. Take Top-Gun for example. According to Wiki: "During filming, director Tony Scott wanted to shoot aircraft landing and taking off, back-lit by the sun. During one particular filming sequence, the ship's commanding officer changed the ship's course, thus changing the light. When Scott asked if they could continue on their previous course and speed, he was informed by the commander that it cost $25,000 to turn the ship, and to continue on course. Scott wrote the carrier's captain a $25,000 check so that the ship could be turned and he could continue shooting for another five minutes." And it was made during the 80's. What more if a movie was made during the 60's I'm guessing it was a lot more expensive!
Sounds to me that captain was trying to rip off the film maker on purpose. Was that carrier in the film a real carrier still in service or decommissioned for commercial use? I also thought that the carrier can't change heading during planes taking off. So how can the carrier change course? Unless the plane scenes were from a different scene and combined with the carrier scene to make it look they were at one place?
The aircraft used were several active cats from VF-51 Screaming Eagle Squad in which Paramount reportedly paid as much as $7,000 per hour for fuel and other costs whenever these planes were asked to fly off duty. To avoid having to spend too much, the Paramount crew spent their time waiting for actual fly-by's, take offs and landings to and from the carrier by the other squadrons on the deck. You will actually find that some scenes are repetitive. The carrier was active on duty. It was the USS Enterprise. The other squadrons on the film were The VF-114 Aardvarks and VF-213 Black Lions, which are the culprits of having me spend so much money on model kits.
And just for those who have no idea how this stuff works, especially some unknown wiki writer of Hollywood drivel, any captain accepting a check for any amount from some Hollywood poobah for anything, and especially on his bridge (where I doubt the poobah had permission to be) would be eligible for one of the fastest courts martial in history. Since that didn't happen, neither did this rather fanciful piece of mythology. On the other hand, as far as the movie Midway is concerned, having personally known more than just a couple of handfuls of naval aviators present, including my father, what always drew comment was the crash at the end. Once one gets past the flaming horror of George Duncan sliding down the flight deck (Duncan wasn't at Midway, himself, but I knew him, too) the great guffaws were over a Grumman F9F jet crashing at the end of the Battle of Midway in 1942. The crash shown in the film actually took place some nine years after the battle, 23 July 1951, and oddly enough aboard USS Midway (CVA-41). George survived and went on to later retire as a Rear Admiral. He was a WWII fighter ace from VF-15. When my father's tour as captain of USS Ranger (CVA-61) was up in May 1962, his relief was George Duncan.
They actually have a reason behind this, and officers of the navy back in the 80's might be able to attest to this if we try to ask them: The movie was taken advantage of to promote the Navy, and to help improve their recruitment. And that may be the reason why the Navy gave Paramount a special "permit to shoot" on the deck. They even put a Navy recruitment ad in the beginning of the movie as part of their deal. As for that unknown wiki writer who composed such fanciful myth, He/she should be reported to the Wiki management for inputting incorrect information on a factual article. His TopGun article has been there for ages, so it will put wiki to shame for letting an anonymous writer tell inaccurate stories.
It's Wiki - are you expecting accuracy? Oh, Fie! Oh Darkest Disappointment! Problem is, people read that kind of crap and, not having any related service background, then believe it - apparently even here - that some USN captain walked down the gangplank with a check in his pocket, free and clear. "Honest, I read it on Wiki, it must be true!" If I were that then captain of Enterprise, I'd do my damned best to find out from whose keyboard this tale came and sue his butt off for defamation. Half of what he'd make for the rest of his life would be mine.
Well I don't really think the writer of that article has to do anything with it, so he should be spared of any defamation case , because he only wrote what he saw on the movie's commentary videos and interviews made by the movie's production crew themselves (and that includes the director himself). And I did not learn about that story from Wiki, I just had the Wiki article copied here since it has the same story and it was the most accessible when I did the post. Actually there are a lot of websites around the globe who talk about the same 'trivia' about the movie. And nobody said that the check went to the captain's pocket. That's a bad assumption.. About "not having any related service background" is another bad assumption. But I don't have to say anything here regarding my background because it will just sound childish. Am I expecting accuracy on Wiki? Yes I am. It is actually part of the law for them to be reliable IN ALL AREAS, otherwise this is what they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Removal_of_false_information Reliability as a source in other contexts Although Wikipedia is stated not to be a primary source, it has been used as evidence in legal cases. In January 2007, The New York Times reported that U.S. courts vary in their treatment of Wikipedia as a source of information, with over 100 judicial rulings having relied on the encyclopedia, including those involving taxes, narcotics, and civil issues such as personal injury and matrimonial issues. Now I don't think the one who published this article (Wiki management) will create such 'Myth'.
Anyway that is a bit off topic. Now back to the Tora! Tora! Tora! movie, they said that the P-40 that crashed was unplanned! The mock up P-40 non-flying model actually lost it's balance taking it to the other group of mock-ups so they were forced to detonate the explosives prematurely to avoid catastrophic result. If you can remember the stunt men running for their lives, they really were!
Yes, yes, I am a meanie. But a basic service related background provides the ability to look at such myths and say "what utter and complete BS." Or how about some knowledge of the law . . . everyone knows a little is dangerous. One might suppose yon director was ready to stand to charges in a Federal Court of bribing or attempting to bribe a US officer in the performance of his duty? Even taking checkbook from pocket without the stroke of a pen could be construed as an attempt to bribe. You do realize that there are people who go to jail all the time for adding, or offering to add, a little something extra for the guy making the decisions, right? And the ones who accept the little something extra? Well, yeah they get to go to jail, too, whether they made the paid for decision or not. My problem with this is that there are, what shall I call them, well, probably nothing kind, those who would perpetuate such drivel with the obligatory "see how corrupt those guys are" exclamation. Face it, pretty much once a story circulates on the internet, it becomes fact, regardless of the facts. And those apparently so easily influenced with no solid background against to measure the story? Well, scroll up and you'll see, "Sounds to me that captain was trying to rip off the film maker on purpose." What does that tell you. Thus the obligation to point out a story that is utter and complete BS to the point of being obnoxious if not outright rude.
