Masters of the Air--coming to Apple TV

Cool. My father was a ball turret gunner that flew 36 missions over the fatherland. Today, my sister crews on Sentimental Journey during the summer, and has for years. We figure she now has more flight hours in a 17 than Dad had! Pretty proud of both of them.
 
Yeah, I think I'm going to subscribe to apple TV just for this. A "Band of Brothers" rewatch sounds like a good warmup for it, too.


Lndwarrior said:
a ball turret gunner that flew 36 missions
Click to expand...
That's damned impressive! I can't imagine being squeezed into that thing for one mission, let alone to survive 36!
 
Jim K said:
Yeah, I think I'm going to subscribe to apple TV just for this. A "Band of Brothers" rewatch sounds like a good warmup for it, too.



That's damned impressive! I can't imagine being squeezed into that thing for one mission, let alone to survive 36!
Click to expand...
They started out with a 25 missions and done. As the war dragged on and crew losses mounted the slowly increased it to at least 36. Not sure if it went higher than that. Dad said "it was all so exciting."
 
Some of us have been waiting for years for this production to get off the ground and take flight. It’s been a long time.
 
Lndwarrior said:
They started out with a 25 missions and done. As the war dragged on and crew losses mounted the slowly increased it to at least 36. Not sure if it went higher than that. Dad said "it was all so exciting."
Click to expand...
That's the thing...I'm sure you know that the fatality rate was close to 50%. Add the wounded and POW's, and something like 25% actually completed a tour. An absolutely unbelievable part of history that's WELL worthy of the Spielberg/Hanks treatment.
 
skyking3286 said:
Some of us have been waiting for years for this production to get off the ground and take flight. It’s been a long time.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s been like 10 years that they’ve been advertising it. HBO dropped it then COVID hit.
 
be aware that Apple TV subscription has jumped from $6.99/month to $9.99/month. (only recently is $4.99/month)

(>-{
 
let's see, $9.99/month for Apple TV+ vs $0 at Blockbuster.
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
be aware that Apple TV subscription has jumped from $6.99/month to $9.99/month. (only recently is $4.99/month)

(>-{
Click to expand...
You can get three months for free from Bestbuy.com. I used to subscribe and dropped it a few years ago. I just went to the BB web site and got the 3 month trial. It auto renews but You can cancel at anytime - I put a note on a calendar in three months to decide if I want to renew. I got the subscription to watch the last few seasons of “For all Mankind”. When I logged into Apple TV+ I saw the trailer for Masters of the Air.
 
Well I wished they would’ve used more real aircraft but CGI is the reality of war movies today. Reminds me a bit of Red Tails.

 
X3 Skier said:
That CGI in the trailer is atrocious. Enough for me to pass. Give me Battle of Britain with real aircraft even if they weren’t Bf109’s.
Click to expand...
Well even with Memphis Belle, while I know a lot of the WWII vets didn’t care for it, it at least used some real aircraft. With the tech today, they could easily mix real with fake.
 
I believe it was a DVD commentary on the movie Apollo 13 that discussed the challenges of mixing real footage with CGI (resolution, 16mm, 35?mm, etc). In the end, they used the real footage in the creation of CGI
 
I hadn't heard about this one.....I suppose it's bound to be good with Hanks and Spielberg involved....so I'm looking forward to figuring out how I can watch it. Haven't used apple tv in several years...I doubt my old box is even supported anymore.

I agree about the CGI vs real aircraft. My wife and started watching a Netflix series "All the Light We Cannot See", just last night. It's set in WW2. The intro sequence had some bomber action that really made me want to go back and watch some of the old war movies that were made with actual surplus stuff... planes, tanks, jeeps, trucks, uniforms, etc... Yeah sure, there was a lot of really bad special effects mixed in a lot of those, but the real hardware had value.
 
Brad W said:
I hadn't heard about this one.....I suppose it's bound to be good with Hanks and Spielberg involved....so I'm looking forward to figuring out how I can watch it. Haven't used apple tv in several years...I doubt my old box is even supported anymore.

I agree about the CGI vs real aircraft. My wife and started watching a Netflix series "All the Light We Cannot See", just last night. It's set in WW2. The intro sequence had some bomber action that really made me want to go back and watch some of the old war movies that were made with actual surplus stuff... planes, tanks, jeeps, trucks, uniforms, etc... Yeah sure, there was a lot of really bad special effects mixed in a lot of those, but the real hardware had value.
Click to expand...
I watch Apple TV shows through a browser.
 
Well, it’s essentially DCS with actors intermixed. Not a single real flying scene. Kinda disappointing so far. Also, left crosswind and applying full left pedal? :D
 
While I wish they could have used more physical effects vs CGI, I'm still excited to watch the series. I just hope it's as good as Band of Brothers and The Pacific. My father was a B-26 bombardier (9AF, 386th BG, 553rd BS), was shot down 2 weeks before D-Day on his 73rd mission and spent the rest of the war as a German POW at Stalag Luft III (site of the Great Escape).
 
Randomskylane said:
The plane that went around in Greenland accelerated like a ufo from the x files

You’d think Spielberg has enough money to at least get decent CGI.

Yeeeeesh
Click to expand...
:p I was thinking the same thing. It’s still good but man, being the most expensive series ever, you’d think they could get a few real planes in it. Take two of each and paint them in period colors. Then in the background, make all those other aircraft CGI. Just like they did in The Memphis Belle, only now the CGI would look a whole lot better.
 
It’s like Midway. It’s a series though so at least they explore the details of aircrew life in England in WWII and the behind the scenes of mission prep.
 
Velocity173 said:
:p I was thinking the same thing. It’s still good but man, being the most expensive series ever, you’d think they could get a few real planes in it. Take two of each and paint them in period colors. Then in the background, make all those other aircraft CGI. Just like they did in The Memphis Belle, only now the CGI would look a whole lot better.
Click to expand...
I’ve only watched one episode…how on earth is that possible (the most expensive series ever)??????

No name actors, filmed in Timbuktu, craptastic cgi, I guess Spielberg paid himself fifty million or something
 
Randomskylane said:
I’ve only watched one episode…how on earth is that possible (the most expensive series ever)??????

No name actors, filmed in Timbuktu, craptastic cgi, I guess Spielberg paid himself fifty million or something
Click to expand...
It can't be. Though undoubtedly crazy expensive, I think its budget still falls a couple hundred million behind the Rings of Power (speaking of disappointing shows)
 
Watching the 2nd episode while eating supper wasn’t such a good idea
 
Randomskylane said:
I’ve only watched one episode…how on earth is that possible (the most expensive series ever)??????

No name actors, filmed in Timbuktu, craptastic cgi, I guess Spielberg paid himself fifty million or something
Click to expand...
Well that was what it was supposed to be. I guess Rings of power beat it out.
www.flyingmag.com

Masters of the Air: Tribute to the Mighty Eighth - FLYING Magazine

In the thin air above 20,000 feet, with German fighters bearing down from all directions, the inside of an unpressurized American bomber in World War II was an altogether foreign world. Freezing cold, oxygen-deprived and hundreds of miles from the nearest friendly fighter escort, the bombers...
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com
 
Randomskylane said:
The plane that went around in Greenland accelerated like a ufo from the x files

You’d think Spielberg has enough money to at least get decent CGI.

Yeeeeesh
Click to expand...
and wasn't that about the time they were make CAVU calls left and right...while flying through what looked to be marginal VFR conditions?

I just finished the 1st one. Enjoyed it but there were some disappointments.
 
Don’t waste your time with this stinker….I am so disappointed.

edit: Disappointed doesn’t even begin to describe it. The most expensive TV series in history, and the CGI looks like a middle school computer lab did it. I’ve been waiting for this turd for 11 years and I’d rather watch paint dry or a monkey operate a typewriter.
 
Last edited:
Randomskylane said:
The plane that went around in Greenland accelerated like a ufo from the x files

You’d think Spielberg has enough money to at least get decent CGI.

Yeeeeesh
Click to expand...

Sometimes the CGI effects don’t follow reality because it would look wrong if it did (look wrong to people not educated/informed). Kind of like sound effects of gunfire is almost never actual gunfire.
 
Yeah, I was really disappointed too - kind of blew my mind that the CGI was as incompetent as it was.
 
I didn't find the CGI that bad. Sure beats using optical effects to multiply the number of aircraft ("633 Squadron"), setting up flat silhouettes of B-17s for the ground shots (1990's "Memphis Belle"), or painting ME-109s in British colors to pad the ranks of the Hurricanes in "Battle of Britain" (What, you DIDN'T notice!!!???).
1706343999029.png

Face it, ladies and gents, there barely enough B-17s left in the world to display a full bomb group, even on the ground. There's not enough flyable B-17s in the world to fly a single squadron. The times when enough get together to form even a single element is rare enough. And we expect movie producers to snap their fingers and scarf up all the flyable B-17s in the world?

If they do try it, look in the background...you'll probably see some OD-painted Electras, DC-7s, and any other four-engined prop transport they can find to make up a "real" squadron.

Otherwise, the moviemakers are left with trying to do it with models. I'm sure no one would be complaining if they had....

CGI allows them to reproduce real-world scenarios that we'd never see again. I'm sorry about the wrong rudder motion or the speed of the Greenland go-around. But it did give us those great "drone" shots showing the line of Forts taxiing down between the hardstands, and the squadrons struggling to join up coming through the clouds. And the skies filled with those majestic Boeing airplanes with all their doors in place....

It reminded me a lot of the filmed version of "The Shepherd." Again, mostly CGI, but of hard-to-find planes flying on a moonlit night. Looked cool.

Being a movie buff, I have my own peeves about shows like this. Salutes, for me, are a big one. Many actors and directors don't know what a salute is supposed to look like. The "Monarch" series on Apple+ is a very bad example of this. Only seen one or two salutes in "Masters of the Air," but the ones I noticed looked right. Referred to an RAF officer as "Captain"; the RAF doesn't HAVE captains. Group Captains, yes, but that's the equivalent of a full colonel. Not likely to find one bar-hopping or getting into a fist fight with Yanks.

I think the sets and the equipment looks dead-on. REAL impressed they found enough B-3 flying coats (the fleece ones) to equip so many actors. And you'll notice if they AREN'T going to be flying, they're wearing A-2 jackets. Exactly the way it should be, original A-2s were a windbreaker only, with no insulation. The trucks and Jeeps have the usual Hollywood mistake (they're too clean...NOBODY in wartime washes a utility vehicle) but at least the Jeeps are wartime models (there might be some CJ-2As, -3As, or -5s in there, but I haven't spotted them yet.)

There are deviances from the standard equipment. I saw men wearing goggles that I thought were WWII Navy goggles, but googling goggles revealed the AN6530 were worn by both services. Spotted one gunner wearing RAF Mk 7 goggles, and one of the lead characters has an obvious non-standard fleece flying jacket. But these things do happen in wartime; the individuals could have picked up these pieces informally.

Otherwise... well, I'm not too impressed with the story lines so far, but we'll see if they pick up. I have always been willing to extend the Suspension of Disbelief that accompanies all fiction. Heck, I enjoy the movie "Gravity" despite 40 years in the space business.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
So far, I’m a fan.

As for the CGI, think of it more artistically, abstractly. It isn’t supposed to make you see what it all looked like, but rather to feel what it felt like. I think they’ve done a good job of that.

For instance, the Greenland go-around. Of course it wouldn’t look like that. But if you were in a B-17 doing a go-around in a 40-knot crosswind after crossing the North Sea, it might’ve felt like that.
 
Last edited:
You can’t tell me that they can’t find a couple B-17s, P-51s, FW-190s, Etc., and paint them in period correct schemes. You put them closest to the camera and in the background is CGI. But better CGI because I agree, they didn’t do a very good job. Looks like a cartoon.

I get it, days of The Battle of Britain are gone. We’ve lost some warbirds through the years but we’ve also gained a few through restorations. Spend the money and put some authentic aircraft in there. The up coming Tuskegee scenes remind me of Red Tails and that was a horrible movie.

I do enjoy the details of the mission prep stuff though. You get to see the behind the scenes ground crew life. You get to know the aircrew characters just like in Band of Brothers. The acting could be better too.
 
It would be interesting to find out how much it would cost to make a number of replica B-17s, sufficient number to support the flying scenes...

(never mind the challenge of getting enough crews to do formation flying...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top