Amelia - Movie to be released in October 09

[gprellwitz]

Does anyone have a good theory while they were flying at 1000 ft to find the island?? Why not 5000 ft or even higher? Your horizon widens considerably. They were at the end of the trip with almost no fuel so I don't think they were performance limited. Perhaps they were limited by cloud cover but if I recall there was nothing more serious than scattered clouds. I would take my chance and climb higher - you really can't see very far from 1000 ft.

I wondered about that too. Of course, it could have just been the moviemaker's decision. I'm not aware of anything that tells us what her altitude was, though I'm sure someone (else) knows what altitude she tended to use. Just doesn't seem likely that she'd use such an inefficient altitude, both from visibility and fuel perspectives.

 

[thepetrostate]

Same pompous dipstick. A legend in his own mind.

I suppose that someone who is considered one of, if not the greatest, American historian and political writers of our times sees himself as just that, yeah, he's a legend in his mind...and much of the contemporaneous literary world.

YMMV.

Of course.

 

[olasek]

I'm not aware of anything that tells us what her altitude was,

This fact is well known - from her famous transmission to Itasca and I believe this exact sentence was also used in this movie:

At 7:42 am: "We must be on you, but we cannot see you. Fuel is running low. Been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet.

 

[gprellwitz]

This fact is well known - from her famous transmission to Itasca and I believe this exact sentence was also used in this movie:

At 7:42 am: "We must be on you, but we cannot see you. Fuel is running low. Been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet.

Thanks, I missed that! (Well actually, now that you mention it, I do remember hearing it, but had forgotten it!)

 

[gismo]

I wondered about that too. Of course, it could have just been the moviemaker's decision. I'm not aware of anything that tells us what her altitude was, though I'm sure someone (else) knows what altitude she tended to use. Just doesn't seem likely that she'd use such an inefficient altitude, both from visibility and fuel perspectives.

As to efficiency, there's no difference between 1000 MSL and 10,000 MSL as long as you fly the appropriate (best range) airspeed for the weight. Up higher you will have a higher TAS but the HP (and fuel) required for that increases exactly in proportion.

I was under the impression that they were flying low because there was a cloud deck above them and they wanted to remain below it so they could spot the ship/island. From what I've read, the biggest comm issue was Amelia's decision to fly that leg without the trailing wire antenna which greatly extended the range of her HF radio. And I kept thinking it was too bad the ship didn't have some high altitude fireworks to launch.

 

[Trapper John]

Wasn't there also some supposed confusion on Earhart's part about what receive frequency she was supposed to be using?


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

We saw the movie last Friday while in Georgia.

It was --- ok.

It seemed to search for motivation. Is Amelia a Pioneer? Lover? Country Girl gone bad? Daredevil? Genius?

Of course, the screenwriters would say, "All of the above." But there are conventions in film-making, and one is "Limit the number of characters."

The flying scenes suffered from Hollywood expectation syndrome: that is, "Every other film we've seen with pilots has the camera mounted on the glareshield facing the grim, determined hero's visage so we must do the same."

Those scenes were barely convincing. The Eleanor Roosevelt scene was more charming as the camera moved about the cockpit, and provided over-the-shoulder views, which were much more compelling and "real." Most of us who fly can relate to the handoff of control to the neophyte, and the subsequent reaction. While cliche, it made Amelia behave as we would expect a pilot to behave.

The scenes of aircraft in various locations was worth the price of admission (such as the floatplane tied up to a bouy in the mist off the coast of Ireland).

The heavily-loaded takeoff scene in the same airplane was just plain bad.

Richard Gere played Richard Gere in this movie, while Hillary Swank did a credible job convincing me I was watching Amelia Earhart, not Hillary Swank. Though AE's slow speech patterns helped slow the pace of the movie down to an almost-tedious crawl.

The final flight build up was fairly well done, skimming over various treasure-hunter minutae and focusing on the impending loss. The short scene of Fred Noonan breaking down as he knows they are lost helped frame and set the tone. Very well done.

Overall, it was just OK. It's not a re-watch, not a recommandation to non-flying friends.

And If I want to watch gorgeous flying scenes, I drop in 16 Right.

 

[gismo]

We saw the movie last Friday while in Georgia.

It was --- ok.

It seemed to search for motivation. Is Amelia a Pioneer? Lover? Country Girl gone bad? Daredevil? Genius?

Of course, the screenwriters would say, "All of the above." But there are conventions in film-making, and one is "Limit the number of characters."

The flying scenes suffered from Hollywood expectation syndrome: that is, "Every other film we've seen with pilots has the camera mounted on the glareshield facing the grim, determined hero's visage so we must do the same."

Those scenes were barely convincing. The Eleanor Roosevelt scene was more charming as the camera moved about the cockpit, and provided over-the-shoulder views, which were much more compelling and "real." Most of us who fly can relate to the handoff of control to the neophyte, and the subsequent reaction. While cliche, it made Amelia behave as we would expect a pilot to behave.

The scenes of aircraft in various locations was worth the price of admission (such as the floatplane tied up to a bouy in the mist off the coast of Ireland).

The heavily-loaded takeoff scene in the same airplane was just plain bad.

Richard Gere played Richard Gere in this movie, while Hillary Swank did a credible job convincing me I was watching Amelia Earhart, not Hillary Swank. Though AE's slow speech patterns helped slow the pace of the movie down to an almost-tedious crawl.

The final flight build up was fairly well done, skimming over various treasure-hunter minutae and focusing on the impending loss. The short scene of Fred Noonan breaking down as he knows they are lost helped frame and set the tone. Very well done.

Overall, it was just OK. It's not a re-watch, not a recommandation to non-flying friends.

And If I want to watch gorgeous flying scenes, I drop in 16 Right.

My wife, while not unacquainted with flying, isn't a pilot but she thought the movie deserved better ratings than the critics gave. Her biggest complaint was that after watching it she still doesn't know what happened to Amelia (as if a Hollywood generated explanation would be credible).

 

[dmccormack]

My wife, while not unacquainted with flying, isn't a pilot but she thought the movie deserved better ratings than the critics gave. Her biggest complaint was that after watching it she still doesn't know what happened to Amelia (as if a Hollywood generated explanation would be credible).

My wife isn't a pilot, either, and is somewhat white-knuckle flier (though she did fly with me to KCSG on Thursday night and then from CSG to AVL yesterday). She didn't like the crash scenes.

The other missing element was a memorable score. Whether you liked Rocky or Star Wars or Titanic or not, it's hard to forget the theme. Those of you who saw Amelia -- can you hum a few bars?

Though not.

 

[gprellwitz]

The final flight build up was fairly well done, skimming over various treasure-hunter minutae and focusing on the impending loss. The short scene of Fred Noonan breaking down as he knows they are lost helped frame and set the tone. Very well done.

Speaking of Fred Noonan, it was odd seeing The Doctor playing the Companion!

The other missing element was a memorable score. Whether you liked Rocky or Star Wars or Titanic or not, it's hard to forget the theme. Those of you who saw Amelia -- can you hum a few bars?

Though not.

There was a score?

 

[dmccormack]

There was a score?

 

[steingar]

My wife, while not unacquainted with flying, isn't a pilot but she thought the movie deserved better ratings than the critics gave. Her biggest complaint was that after watching it she still doesn't know what happened to Amelia (as if a Hollywood generated explanation would be credible).

I thought the ending was fair. While we can make some facile speculations, truly no one knows. That is how the movie ended, and I don't think anything else would have been appropriate. I did love the desperation in Fred Noonan's face when he realized how lost they were and the trouble they were in.

I thought the critics were unnecessarily harsh. The story deserves to be told, and she was portrayed by one of the finest actresses in the Cinema.

 

[olasek]

That is how the movie ended, and I don't think anything else would have been appropriate.

I fully agree with that. Anything else would cheapen the movie. The odds are overwhelming they went down into water (and the movie suggests that) .. what else is there to know?

 

[wanttaja]

There was a score?

Yep: Pacific Ocean 1, Earhart 0.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bob Noel]

My wife isn't a pilot, either, and is somewhat white-knuckle flier (though she did fly with me to KCSG on Thursday night and then from CSG to AVL yesterday). She didn't like the crash scenes.

The other missing element was a memorable score. Whether you liked Rocky or Star Wars or Titanic or not, it's hard to forget the theme. Those of you who saw Amelia -- can you hum a few bars?

Though not.

My understanding is that you generally want the music to add to the
movie without being noticable. If you are listening to the score, then
the composer is overdoing it and/or the director/actors aren't doing
enough

 

[Anthony]

Yep: Pacific Ocean 1, Earhart 0.

Ron Wanttaja

LOL! TOO FUNNY.

 

[dmccormack]

My understanding is that you generally want the music to add to the
movie without being noticable. If you are listening to the score, then
the composer is overdoing it and/or the director/actors aren't doing
enough

The script and acting has to be up to a brilliant score.

A good score on a bad movie is like ice cream on dog food.

 

[olasek]

Those of you who saw Amelia -- can you hum a few bars?

And I personally liked it that way - sometimes there is way too much 'show time' when music is noticeable. I could list quite a few outstanding movies from the past where music was relegated to far background.

Someone mentioned above the crash scene - the only crash scene in this movie that I recall - takeoff from Honolulu seemed well done, I saw nothing wrong with it.

 

[Bob Noel]

And I personally liked it that way - sometimes there is way too much 'show time' when music is noticeable. I could list quite a few outstanding movies from the past where music was relegated to far background.

Someone mentioned above the crash scene - the only crash scene in this movie that I recall - takeoff from Honolulu seemed well done, I saw nothing wrong with it.

I have not seen the movie, I only saw a plug for it on Jay Leno.
The scene shown was a crash scene that was anything but well done.
Just more of the hollywood special effects, quick cut, multiple angle
crash that goes on and on and on and on and... it was ludicrous

 

[olasek]

The scene shown was a crash scene that was anything but well done.
Just more of the hollywood special effects, quick cut, multiple angle
crash that goes on and on and on and on and... it was ludicrous

So maybe if you see the whole movie you change your mind. This movie is not about special effects. This crash was important to this story and should have been shown - and if special effects helped to show it in its full duration - so bit. In short - I disagree with you.

 

[dmccormack]

I have not seen the movie, I only saw a plug for it on Jay Leno.
The scene shown was a crash scene that was anything but well done.
Just more of the hollywood special effects, quick cut, multiple angle
crash that goes on and on and on and on and... it was ludicrous

Not really. There was some intentional slow motion footage as well as sequence shot (Show gear, show prop, show actors, back to gear) that you might have taken as sequential but were in fact acting coterminously.

 

[steingar]

I have not seen the movie, I only saw a plug for it on Jay Leno.
The scene shown was a crash scene that was anything but well done.
Just more of the hollywood special effects, quick cut, multiple angle
crash that goes on and on and on and on and... it was ludicrous

If what you value are scene of planes you should stick to the history channel (or the military channel).

 

[Pjsmith]

Have yet to see the movie, but On Point had an hour about it the day it released. About the most interesting portion of the hour was dedicated to a group called Tighar ( http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr.html )

Their theories include: 1) the recently discovered footage of her last takeoff shows what they think to be the lower antenna mast snapping off and this contributed to the navy ship not being able to take a radio range on them; and 2) that AE landed on Gardner Island and survived for some period of time broadcasting and then squatting thereafter. Don't know if any of it is true, but an interesting listen at: http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/10/amelia-earhart

 

[thepetrostate]

Have yet to see the movie, but On Point had an hour about it the day it released. About the most interesting portion of the hour was dedicated to a group called Tighar ( http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr.html )

Their theories include: 1) the recently discovered footage of her last takeoff shows what they think to be the lower antenna mast snapping off and this contributed to the navy ship not being able to take a radio range on them; and 2) that AE landed on Gardner Island and survived for some period of time broadcasting and then squatting thereafter. Don't know if any of it is true, but an interesting listen at: http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/10/amelia-earhart

Thanks for the links but according to D. Henriques, she died of gonorrhea.

 

[thepetrostate]

If what you value are scene of planes you should stick to the history channel (or the military channel).

Pleasantness is a challenge, yes?

 

[steingar]

Pleasantness is a challenge, yes?

No, just understanding priorities. The only thing you can talk about are the aircraft in the show. If that is where your priorities lie, then there are far better venues for your entertainment, including those I pointed out.

 

[Bob Noel]

If what you value are scene of planes you should stick to the history channel (or the military channel).

My complaint is with how ridiculous the crash scene looked, not with
the airplane content.

But it seems that hollywood today goes overboard with the special
effects, way overboard. It seems everyone is trying to make
crash scenes even more complicated...as if the special effects
were more important than the story/plot.

 

[olasek]

.as if the special effects
were more important than the story/plot.

No real special effects in this movie to speak of - except perhaps this one crash scene. Also I claim that its duration in this movie was quite comparable to what it would be in real life - it takes so many seconds to bleed aircraft speed, scrape the tarmac, bend props and come to rest in the grass. I personally did not see any deliberate slow motions at all.