Page 1 of 1

"Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:47 pm
by wifesaysno
Well known EAA correspondent Mac lays out his review of the new aviation movie Flight.

http://macsblog.com/2012/11/are-we-really-that-boring/

This movie so far does not seem to be getting great aviation reviews. So between that and the commercials I will be staying away from it.

Honestly, an inverted pull out with a roll in a regional airliner at low altitude and high speed?! Excuse me?!
And why must the pilot be riddled with drug use, alcohol abuse, and other immoral flaws?!

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:06 am
by Webb
[url=http://gawker.com/5957968/anheuser+busch-isnt-thrilled-that-denzel-washingtons-functional-alcoholic-character-in-flight-drinks-so-much-budweiser]Anheuser-Busch Isn

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:29 am
by Jetranger
Budweiser - that now Foreign owned Company, owned by Inbev.

I'll bet its because of something else !

Bud, never used to complain about their products in movies, long before Inbev, bought them out, movies like Urban Cowboy(1980), and a host of other thru out the decades. Don't ever remember hearing Coors complain & whine about their products showing up in a movie ??

Maybe InBev/ Budweiser just wants their % of sum Moolah $$$$, for using their beer logos in a movie ,, more of that over the top  Copyright / trademark infrigement stuff~ola,,, anything for a Buck !

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:31 am
by Webb
Could be.  I haven't seen the movie and based on the reviews I probably won't until it's released on home media.

Commercial products usually want their logos displayed in movies and pay for product placement (Demolition Man/Taco Bell).  I assume they have some control of how their products are displayed.

So maybe Budweiser didn't pay for product placement and is unhappy with the way it is portrayed.

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:46 pm
by expat
"Realism goes out the window almost instantly when Whip conducts the walk-around in the downpour while his copilot is snug and dry in the cockpit. Whip hits the oxygen mask in a further recovery attempt."

This is the only realism that I found in the write-up, although it is taken from two places. In the company I work for, the captain has to do the walk around and the second part, many moons ago in a life that involved a blue suit and single seaters, I lost count of the number of pilots I strapped in that went to 100% oxygen as soon as they had sat down............... ;D

As Bud said, I will wait, but wait until it hits the $1 bucket at the DVD rental

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:08 pm
by ftldave
Honestly, an inverted pull out with a roll in a regional airliner at low altitude and high speed?! Excuse me?!


In such a horrific situation, it really did happen. But, sadly, not with the same results as depicted in the movie. From the Wiki:

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crashed after a jackscrew in the horizontal stabilizer failed. The crew, in an attempt to maintain controlled flight, flew inverted for a time before control was lost completely. The plane plunged nose down into the Pacific Ocean at very high speeds. All on board perished.

While I appreciate realism in movies, I'm not wound up so tight to not be able to enjoy Flight. I think everyone should take a deep breath and say, "It's only a movie." If it bothers you THAT much, maybe better to stick to watching documentaries.

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:48 pm
by Jetranger
:) :) :) :) :) Right on' believe ya hit the nail on the head !! :o :o :o

Re: "Flight" is not looking good

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:56 pm
by wifesaysno
[quote]While I appreciate realism in movies, I'm not wound up so tight to not be able to enjoy Flight. I think everyone should take a deep breath and say, "It's only a movie." If it bothers you THAT much, maybe better to stick to watching documentaries.