Is the WWII Movie “Midway” Really That Bad?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 840

  • @mikealvarez2322
    @mikealvarez2322 2 місяці тому +174

    I don't know how one could capture the Battle of Midway without CGI.

    • @jamesmaclennan4525
      @jamesmaclennan4525 2 місяці тому +2

      Seconded

    • @Philbert-s2c
      @Philbert-s2c 2 місяці тому +15

      They did it in 1976 with the Heston version but that was using old stock war footage and that wasn't very believable either...

    • @nickmitsialis
      @nickmitsialis 2 місяці тому +9

      @@jamesmaclennan4525 Totally agree==EVEN if you have authentic (or made up to look authentic) period aircraft, it's probably too dangerous to fly them too hard (the owners don't want to 'bend their rod' nor do they want to get killed flying 'em).

    • @ChristopherMarshburn
      @ChristopherMarshburn 2 місяці тому

      True. However, if they wanted to make it look completely authentic it would probably be boring and slow to an FX saturated American film audience.

    • @Rob_F8F
      @Rob_F8F 2 місяці тому +16

      It's can't be done without CGI. However, one hopes it would be done with GOOD CGI and not what they did in this movie .
      I don't blame the SFX artists. They are usually not given anywhere enough time to do effects properly.

  • @michaelswami
    @michaelswami 2 місяці тому +131

    I put myself out there on this. It was way more historically accurate than many WW2 movies.

    • @josephbarnardiiiimbang827
      @josephbarnardiiiimbang827 2 місяці тому

      you have no idea about accuracy. You just enjoy watching munching a bag of popcorn .

    • @danmoyenin8948
      @danmoyenin8948 2 місяці тому +14

      ​@@josephbarnardiiiimbang827 Pacific war uncensored channel really rated it. They said it was really accurate for the most part.

    • @josephbarnardiiiimbang827
      @josephbarnardiiiimbang827 2 місяці тому +2

      @@danmoyenin8948 story line and characters I should say within acceptable limit. The rest is make believe. I ll scrap this one and just wait til one thought about making the thatch weave or the land base perspective

    • @NicholasLee-t9s
      @NicholasLee-t9s 2 місяці тому +5

      @@josephbarnardiiiimbang827 I will say, it gets the hard stuff right and the easy stuff wrong. Such as the B-26 attempting to make a 'kamikaze' attack on the Akagi... but at the same time they made a squadron of B-26s when there were only 4 and they did a high level bombing instead of a historically accurate torpedo run

    • @joeelliott2157
      @joeelliott2157 Місяць тому +5

      Vastly more accurate than most WW2 movies. I would shoot down 90 % of the WW2 movies out there before I would start trash talking this one. Yes, the planes did pull out much lower than reality, to make it more dramatic. Ensign Gay was not that close to the KAGA. But I was surprised how much was accurate.
      1. The long search for the carriers by the Enterprise dive bombers.
      2. Being guided by a Japanese destroyer.
      3. The confusion that caused both Scouting 6 and Diving 6 to attack the same carrier.
      4. The three planes, like by DIck Best, not attacking from the rear, as was pretty universal for dive bomber attacks but attacking from the side, because of the extreme need to conserve fuel.

  • @craigdashjian2771
    @craigdashjian2771 2 місяці тому +98

    I disagree with both guys as to whether Midway was the turning point of the Pacific War. The guy on the left thinks the turning point was the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in which USS Washington and USS South Dakota sink IJN Kirishima. This was a relatively minor surface engagement and the four Japanese beached themselves on Guadalcanal and unloaded some troops, hardly decisive engagement. The other guy thinks the Battle of Philippine Sea was the decisive engagement because it was a lopsided victory (which it was), however Japan had already lost the war long before this battle. Midway was the LAST Japanese offensive of the war and saw the crippling of the Kido Butai. After Midway the Japanese were permanently on the defensive. Midway was the turning point of the Pacific War.

    • @shiroamakusa8075
      @shiroamakusa8075 2 місяці тому +6

      Yeah no, the Guadalcanal campaign was the last time Japan advanced in the war and losing it meant that they no longer had any momentum. They could still fight effective carrier battles in that campaign, but their former advantage in carriers and experienced aircrews had sharply diminished, allowing the US to fight them more evenly in that regard and giving them more time for the industrial advantage to come into play. Midway was a huge blow for the IJN, but it was not the turning point.

    • @doctorbjones2283
      @doctorbjones2283 2 місяці тому +4

      "Some troops" is the operative phrase there. 2-3000 troops were landed, but several thousand more were lost, as well as all of their supplies and ammunition. The 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal is what convinced the IJN and IJA that the island was lost, and that was the last time the Japanese would try to take back an island.

    • @johnharris6655
      @johnharris6655 2 місяці тому +6

      Japan did not have the industrial power or materials to replace lost carriers like the US . The US built something like 40 carriers during the war while Japan only built 2 or 3 at best. It was said after Midway, Japan was retreating and the US was Reloading.

    • @shiroamakusa8075
      @shiroamakusa8075 2 місяці тому +4

      @@johnharris6655 But the Japanese were not retreating after Midway. They were still expanding hence the Guadalcanal campaign which is where the war turned around.

    • @johnharris6655
      @johnharris6655 2 місяці тому

      @@shiroamakusa8075 They retreated, After Midway and the Canal, all the Japanese did for 2 years was engage in a slow fighting retreat.

  • @alexfilma16
    @alexfilma16 2 місяці тому +267

    A cgi-fest for sure, but the movie makes up for it by being quite historically accurate in my opinion.

    • @krisfrederick5001
      @krisfrederick5001 2 місяці тому +11

      Yeah, too much. just like Dunkirk. It should be used not abused.

    • @BHuang92
      @BHuang92 2 місяці тому +36

      ​@krisfrederick5001 Dunkirk was good but I feel like some CGI should've been used, especially on the beaches and town. The place looked too neat to be a Battle of Dunkirk!

    • @nickmitsialis
      @nickmitsialis 2 місяці тому +10

      The real problem for me is several: (and I DID enjoy the movie, BTW) the actors look TOO SOFT to have grown up during the Depression; the other is that many of the USN pilots have been flying since the 1930s and again they don't look 'mature' enough. In addtion Japanese AA fire seemed too intense for the period. I always thought the IJN was lacking in 'medium caliber' AA guns (say, 30, 37, 40 mm Size) as well as heavy caliber (dual purpose guns like the US 5 Inch)--that being said, I'm not really sure how effective those triple 25mm guns were or how far out they could reach. Finally, the fact that they don't actually have an actual physical ship to act against seems to count against them. It reminded me of the 'Wing Commander: Heart of the Tiger' game where the entire set of the 'Tiger Claw' carrier was green screened.
      Say what you like about the 1970s 'Midway' movie, there were still WW2 era ships you could film on.

    • @jannarkiewicz633
      @jannarkiewicz633 2 місяці тому +7

      The glide bombing at the end... Really... I lost it.

    • @krisfrederick5001
      @krisfrederick5001 2 місяці тому +7

      @@BHuang92 They should have at least used CGI like Lord of The Rings to portray how many soldiers were actually on the beach trying to escape. That visual wasn't accurate at all.

  • @Rangerluck
    @Rangerluck 2 місяці тому +190

    I have never heard anyone call it bad. I have only really heard praise on its historical accuracy. Yes there’s a lot of cgi but there needs to be to make a movie like it.

    • @cubanmotion2010
      @cubanmotion2010 Місяць тому +5

      Ummm…Tora Tora Tora.

    • @kelvinmok10
      @kelvinmok10 Місяць тому +16

      @@cubanmotion2010 And Tora Tora Tora had minor problems with ship and aircraft models, and that was back in 1970. There simply aren't enough ships or planes that survived from that era (and even less 40 years later) to not use CGI. It is either CGI or inacuaracy.

    • @Italianplayercvu
      @Italianplayercvu Місяць тому +3

      Accuracy? Later fleet scenes are filled with so many obvious problems.

    • @Heathcoatman
      @Heathcoatman Місяць тому +2

      You arent speaking to the right people then.

    • @rvanleersum
      @rvanleersum Місяць тому +3

      If you're hearing praise for historical accuracy, you're talking to the wrong people for objectivity. It's not a disaster on that front similar to something like Braveheart or The Patriot (I use them as oft-cited bad examples of historical dramas with some widespread belief it's accurate and/or intended to be), but there's many glaring issues.
      My biggest issue with it was it failed to live up to Tora Tora Tora, the obvious benchmark. With all its budget, abilities to nail historical accuracy with our newfound knowledge of the battles, and the CGI aspect to fill gaps; it fails miserably. The story is (for me) too one sided from the American perspective, which is fine and not the thing that lets the movie down; but I think this story is especially interesting to see things from both sides with the fog of war. That element adds to the cat and mouse, chess match going on behind the battles themselves; those equally important to the fight itself.
      However, where the movie really goes sideways is the exaggeration, heroics, and similar which felt too much like those old-school postwar 'propaganda' war films with modern splashes of the over-the-top Michael Bay cinematic visuals and cheese lines. The unrealistic flying low to the deck and other events in the attacks is just silly and only added for some manner of suspense.

  • @trevorvogel8132
    @trevorvogel8132 2 місяці тому +85

    I passed on this movie on release because of Roland Emmerich. I expected it to be as historically accurate as "2012", and never gave it a second thought. It wasn't until I saw a video by History Buffs which revealed that it was actually a decent attempt at being accurate by Emmerich that I watched the movie. Although the movie does have a number of issued with pacing and exposition, as well as a bit of overindulgence in cgi action, I think overall it is a pretty good movie.

    • @Trailerwizard69
      @Trailerwizard69 2 місяці тому

      excuse me you refused to see because it was directed by one of the most revered and accomplished directors of all time? that's hardly a reason is it?

    • @danmoyenin8948
      @danmoyenin8948 2 місяці тому

      Ha ha ha.

    • @danielgorski8722
      @danielgorski8722 2 місяці тому +4

      I watched it because of the History Buffs supportive review. Excellent channel.

    • @4rnnr_as
      @4rnnr_as 2 місяці тому +1

      Same here. I disliked it until I saw the History Buff's review. I appreciate it much more now. But "overindulgence in CGI" is a great way to describe it.

    • @korbendallas5318
      @korbendallas5318 25 днів тому

      Wait a minute... "2012" is not accurate??!??!!1??1!!?

  • @cowtippper1996
    @cowtippper1996 2 місяці тому +92

    Not as bad as that Pearl Harbor Soap Opera

    • @hiramnoone
      @hiramnoone 2 місяці тому +4

      Nowhere *near* as bad.

    • @PowerfulTruth
      @PowerfulTruth 2 місяці тому +5

      Amen! Pearl Harbor WAS the worst war movie I have ever seen. The only one I have ever walked out of in my life. As lame a WWII Lemming as was ever filmed.

    • @Warszawski_Modernizm
      @Warszawski_Modernizm 2 місяці тому +3

      as Ebert and Siskel stated- IJN declares war on a love triangle.

    • @gothard5
      @gothard5 2 місяці тому +1

      That movie was awesome

    • @ryancox530
      @ryancox530 2 місяці тому +1

      I would love to have them cover that just for fun

  • @indygeo4267
    @indygeo4267 2 місяці тому +45

    I saw this movie while it was out in theaters. As a Pacific War enthusiast, especially when it comes to naval aviation, I enjoyed it quiet a bit. It was pretty fun watching this movie on the big screen.

  • @kylecarlstrom1106
    @kylecarlstrom1106 2 місяці тому +29

    The Rochefort "was forced to take a break" comment bugged me. He was removed because Washington D.C. ie Navy CNO Adm. King was a petty politician, and didn't want to recognize the work Rochefort had done. Mainly because it made fools of some of King's favorite "intelligence" officers in D.C. So Rochefort was removed from intelligence and made the CO of a dry dock facility.

    • @johnharris6655
      @johnharris6655 2 місяці тому

      Nimitz tried to get Rochefort a Navy Cross, when that was denied he went for the DSC, that was denied. Rochefort told him to stop because it was only going to cause problems for Nimitz

    • @DrBugz-h1q
      @DrBugz-h1q Місяць тому +3

      @@kylecarlstrom1106 Ernest King and his henchmen the Redman brothers.

  • @renegadeleader1
    @renegadeleader1 2 місяці тому +55

    1. Admiral Yamamoto could have been in Japan to hear Roosevelt's speech if it was actually broadcast as he did not sail with the Pearl Harbor force like he did with the Midway fleet.
    2. The SBD Dauntless while slow did in fact have manuverability on par with a Zero when unladen with bombs. There are multiple accounts of SBD's out turning Zero's in a dogfight from the war.
    3. The aircrew of the B-25 that landed in Vladivostok was not interred for the entire war and were allowed to "escape" and transferred back to the US via Iran in late 1942-43.
    4. Can the Doolittle raid be considered a success despite the price paid by China? Yes. The raid itself damaged a carrier that was under construction and would have been in service by Midway if not damaged, and the Midway attack itself is a direct response to the US hitting the Japanese mainland, leading to a complete reversal in the entire Pacific.
    5. Four B-26 Marauders took part in the battle of Midway and were hastily equipped and trained for torpedo attack. Two were shot down including the one that nearly hit the Akagi and two so damaged they ended up scrapped. Only the B-17's attempted high altitude bombings.
    6.Richard Best did have oxygen issues during the battle of Midway triggering tuberculosis that had been dormant in his lungs. He never flew again after the battle.
    7.George Gay was not the only survivor from Torpedo Eight. Part of the squadron was held back awaiting new aircraft in the US and missed the carrier departing, but managed to get their new TBF Avengers in time to fly out to Midway Island and take part in the battle. Of the six VT-8 TBF's sent out from Midway only one made it back with it's pilot Albert Ernest and his radio man surviving. George Gay is the only survivor from VT-8's TBD Devastator contingent that flew from the Hornet though.
    8. The Yorktown actually sank the day after the battle as it was being towed back to Pearl Harbor when it was torpedoed by a submarine.
    9. I'm inclined to disagree that Midway isn't the turning as it's repercussions are felt at Guadalcanal. The Japanese are unable to provide air cover for their transport fleets causing their soldiers to starve and also throw away surface assets to supress an airfield in an area they can't hold in daylight.

    • @jimdunigan7029
      @jimdunigan7029 2 місяці тому +2

      1. No, Yamamoto wasn't in Japan, he was in fact aboard his flagship the Nagato heading out to meet the Pearl Harbor strike force on its return from the attack.
      2. While the SBD DID participate as part of scouting and to a lesser degree Combat Air Patrol evolutions, after Coral Sea? The SBD RARELY, if ever INTENTIONALLY got into a dogfight with a Type 0 fighter. The SBD was NOT on par with the Type 0 that is a myth, the only place a SBD remotely had a chance(merely to survive)? Was ONLY in a low-energy fight.
      3. Crew #8, Award York's crew were in fact interred in Russia for 13 months before being released and returning to the U.S. in May, 1943. The aircraft remained interred.
      4. The Midway attack was NOT a response to the "Doolittle Raid", Operation MI was already in the planning stages LONG before the "Doolittle Raid".
      5. No B-26 "nearly" hit the Akagi(as if it were intentional or accidental, and DEFINITELY not how they show it in the movie). Lt. Muir of "Suzie-Q" dropped his torpedo and to avoid as much anti-aircraft fire as possible he skimmed/flew down the length of the flight deck because he felt it gave him the best chance to survive.
      8. The "Yorky" didn't succumb to her wounds till I-168 found her and she went down on June 7, 1942, THREE days following the battle.
      9. Midway is DEFINITELY the turning point of the war in the Pacific, the Japanese will never again(fleet-wise)regain parody with the United States Navy in the number of flight decks they each possess. The nail in the coffin for the Imperial Japanese Navy is the Philippine Sea engagement in June, 1944. 350 aircraft lost over two days, the Japanese will never force a surface action again with carriers or air groups even remotely capable of fighting the United States Navy. By the end of the Battle of Midway, for the Japanese, it is not a question that they will inevitably lose the war(and they know it too)but, more or less the question is when will that decision to surrender be?

    • @zacharyberry5019
      @zacharyberry5019 2 місяці тому +8

      @@jimdunigan7029half of your “corrections” were just semantics… his point about the dauntless was that it could do the maneuvers that the guy said wasn’t possible. It was literally just a roll. The dude in the mustache rambled about nonsense that nobody cared about and was honestly more opinion than fact

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker Місяць тому +3

      @@jimdunigan7029 I disagree with your number 5 comment. A B-26 did nearly hit the bridge of Akagi, but it is not known if it was intentional action. I believe Fuchida mention it as he said the bridge crew all ducked and he himself said Wow!

    • @jimdunigan7029
      @jimdunigan7029 Місяць тому

      @@coleparker 🤣🤣And Fuchida is a bold faced liar. As U.S. Naval historians we ALL know this, his book is complete nonsense, ask Parshall he knows and has stated as much. The Japanese debunked his BS years before American historians did. My #5 comment is spot on, go look up Lt. Muir's account and Suzie-Q's actions and educate yourself. Because NOTHING like what is depicted in the film is remotely accurate, not to mention, there weren't nineteen B-26's even at the Battle of Midway, there were only four.
      Lt. Muir flew down the length of Akagi's flight deck, not intentionally at the island. Lt. Muir realized he was less likely to get hit if he flew down the flight deck because the Akagi's AA batteries were weaker from the fore and aft ends dead-ahead and from directly aft of the stern.

    • @cardiv5zuikaku944
      @cardiv5zuikaku944 Місяць тому +1

      ​@@jimdunigan7029 Japanese still have offensive operation during Guadalcanal and Solomon island, Guadalcanal is the most brutal naval combat before the Philiphine, sure Japanese lost 4 Carriers and one cruiser, but it still have a sizable number of other ships, and they were used on Guadalcanal, with all kind of ships firing of each other to gain dominance over Guadalcanal.
      Id say oppinioj of Guadalcanal as the turning point in the war is not exactly outlandish

  • @ffmedic87
    @ffmedic87 2 місяці тому +33

    The way they got Yorktown back in service was beyond amazing.

    • @outlet6989
      @outlet6989 2 місяці тому +2

      Give a person doing a DIY project some 4x8 plywood; anything is possible.

    • @timothybuckley6960
      @timothybuckley6960 2 місяці тому

      The repair facilities were another target that were supposed to be destroyed by the third wave.

    • @moonshotmurray
      @moonshotmurray Місяць тому

      And yet the Japanese couldn't be bothered to cobble together an air group and have Zuikaku join the KB for the attack on Midway. It shows which side wanted it more.

    • @dannyblau3850
      @dannyblau3850 Місяць тому +1

      @@moonshotmurraywas less “what side wanted it more” and more A, they literally thought they had sunk the Yorktown and B, thought the Americans were kind of dumb and it was inconceivable that the US would see them coming. Ultimately they were just overly arrogant and confident.

    • @moonshotmurray
      @moonshotmurray Місяць тому

      @@dannyblau3850 Yes. But Operation MI had originally been conceived with all six of the KB's flight decks participating. Operation MO had seen CarDiv 5 crippled. However, Zuikaku could have absolutely sailed with the KB had the Japanese cobbled together an air group with Shokaku's planes that had landed aboard Zuikaku and other units. The U.S. worked miracles. The Japanese did not. You and I are saying basically the same thing. The U.S. wanted it more. The Japanese seemingly felt that simply showing up was enough.

  • @outlet6989
    @outlet6989 2 місяці тому +22

    This is for those who criticize the movie for its use of CGI. I've watched many WW2 Pacific war movies produced during and after the war. In nearly every case, the Japanese fighter planes are American pilot training planes such as the North American T-6 TEXAN. How's that for realism?

    • @nickmitsialis
      @nickmitsialis 2 місяці тому +3

      Authentic period planes are too 'important' to accidentally wreck.

    • @dmac7128
      @dmac7128 2 місяці тому +4

      Most people couldn't tell the difference between a real T-6 Texan and a Japanese Zero. But most people can sniff out bad CGI The problem with CGI is that it looks too pristine or it places shots that are impossible to capture with real cameras. It takes viewers out of the experience and robs them of the suspension of disbelief. That's what film makers today don't understand.

    • @nickmitsialis
      @nickmitsialis 2 місяці тому

      @@dmac7128 Sure! It's like 'tread heads' can see whether the armor is authentic or not, but the general audience don't care.
      Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if flyable (and drive-able) WW2 aircraft and armored vehicles were available in large numbers but...them's the breaks.

    • @Grant25
      @Grant25 2 місяці тому +2

      It’s not the type of planes that’s the problem. Its the movement and the fact it looks fake

    • @chardtomp
      @chardtomp 2 місяці тому +1

      If you're referring to Tora Tora Tora, the planes were Texans that were very extensively modified to look like various Japanese aircraft and for the early 1970s they were really very good analogs. There weren't more than one or two flying original Zeros in the world at that time and CGI was decades away. They were used in several other movies and TV shows later. Most notably Final Countdown and the TV series Baa Baa Black Sheep.

  • @ffmedic87
    @ffmedic87 2 місяці тому +17

    Also talking about Ensign Gay. He came to Beaumont in the late 1970’s to see my dad and he gave him an autographed copy of the book The Battle of Midway. I got to meet him and will remember that forever. He told me about floating under his seat while the battle was going on and praying he would survive it.

  • @ffmedic87
    @ffmedic87 2 місяці тому +27

    Also Ensign George Gay was my dad’s roommate at Texas A&M.

    • @billhobbs7077
      @billhobbs7077 Місяць тому

      Jeez talk about being a witness to history

  • @jtbrown51
    @jtbrown51 Місяць тому +6

    I like how they start out saying the movie is awful then proceed to talk about how every scene actually happened.

    • @SRR-5657
      @SRR-5657 19 днів тому

      Real, this seriously annoyed me, I don't get why people crap on this movie so much, it's great.

  • @Coyote27981
    @Coyote27981 Місяць тому +6

    Bad? Its one of the best if not the best WW2 movie made in the past 15 years.
    Great cast.
    Great CGI.
    Quite high historical accuracy for Hollywood standards.
    Cant ask for much more out of a movie... Need a Miniseried to dive deeper.

    • @Dr_Opal_Winfinger
      @Dr_Opal_Winfinger 22 дні тому

      I have to beg to differ as far as great cgi. Even if someone with only limited military understanding but a history undergrad major who is obsessed with world war II history and battles, I also picked out immediately how ridiculous some of the close encounters were. I realize that makes it more suspenseful but it is hard even with CGI to make some of those ridiculous maneuvers look realistic. Also we have some black and white footage, filmed from where I'm not sure but certainly not of great quality, of some of the airspace over and around the ships where these dive bombers were making their runs and the Japanese anti-aircraft gunners and machinery putting everything they had into the air above them hoping to survive.
      Even if the Japanese had a gun every 3 ft none of them shot at the rate capable of creating an aerospace that looked more like a bad Hollywood horror movie about locusts or swarms of mosquitoes packed densely together than was possible. Sure they put up as much flag as they could, but again they didn't have guns capable of a constant stream of fire and, the dive bombers certainly did make runs one after the other, but not nearly as close to the others as depicted here. The massive craters dropping into the ocean after a large hit also didn't last for a minute plus. If a bomb hits and is creating craters that large it will run out of debris to throw out in a debris field far too quickly for bust size boulders to be landing in the ocean a minute later. And if that many craters were actually landing that close to each other for that length of time, I feel like it would have created a damn tsunami in all directions..
      Any of the scenes that included multiple aircraft in a cluttered airspace were also ridiculous and laughably so based upon footage we have captured and remastered in color now of several of the battles.. none of these battles involved enough aircraft to create an aerospace that literally looked like a swarm of bees tightly grouped together numbering in the several billion flying at one another like swarms at heights separated by 10 ft and widths depicted as wingtip to wingtip. There would have been more in air collisions with enemy fighters and friendly fire than aces. Neither military ever flew in formations like that because it was guaranteeing American planes taking out other American planes. If you're flying fighters that closely grouped together, you'd have to have all agreed ahead of time we are not going to move even if we see direct fire coming at us because by doing so will necessarily take out one of our mates planes and ours as well. That initial seen where you can't even make out the type of plane or if it's American or Japanese because they're so thickly packed together in the air. Not only would that be the equivalent of both armies agreeing to a different sort of kamikaze the naval forces saying let's make it a big game of chicken, it wasn't possible with the number of aircraft Northern maneuverability of the aircraft nor known doctrine no existing film footage. That was my main issue with the cgi. I did think compared to a movie like Dunkirk it was unquestionably lower quality. But I also think that almost every war movie I have ever seen embellishes battle scenes to a certain extent. It can't help but add to the tension you experience as a viewer, even if your inner skepticism is quick to ruin that enjoyment. There were tons of explosions and obvious CGI in dunkirk, and almost every war film made sense CGI became available and of decent quality. That's why I have to say here that the CGI is not of the best quality, the quickest thing that came to mind again was Dunkirk but even saving private ryan.. also it was the CGI scenes that I found were the most obviously historical fiction and provably false based on footage and well-understood battle history.

  • @richardboll8763
    @richardboll8763 Місяць тому +3

    Relieved of bomb load, the Dauntless was actually a very maneuverable aircraft and throughout the war had been credited with several downed Japanese fighter aircraft. While that scene with Dick Best may not have actually happened, it was representative of the Dauntless was capable of.

  • @lippertwe
    @lippertwe 2 місяці тому +4

    And let's give the film 10000000 points for not having any corny romances!!!

  • @ereini0n
    @ereini0n 2 місяці тому +25

    Loved the movie, rewatch it every time it's on TV, it has everything - human factor, exciting air battles, ships.

  • @k1productions87
    @k1productions87 2 місяці тому +16

    Without question, the Enterprise NEEDS to be its own miniseries.

    • @jimdunigan7029
      @jimdunigan7029 2 місяці тому

      No it doesn't, and it DEFINITELY doesn't if its as bad as that AppleTV+ atrocity "Masters Of The Air"... GAWD... do NOT get me started on that atrocity... Truth is, Enterprise, in reality... is not that special of a carrier. One has to look at the context surrounding a story to truly understand where its position in history really is. Historians have GROSSLY blown her contributions to the Second World War out of proportion over the last fifty some-odd years. Everyone see the 20 battle stars and gets "google-eyed" and literally "star struck". There's just one UGE problem... you can't use battle stars as a measurement. Why is that? Because "battle stars" are NOT given based upon merit and/or a ships impact and/or significance and/or contributions to an operation.
      "Battle stars" are awarded for well... "just being there"... a ship doesn't have to do anything, it just has to be assigned to an operation and/or campaign and at the completion of its assigned duties a "battle star" is awarded. If one was to truly look at Enterprise's combat record most of her "battle stars" were awarded for "raids" and yes "patrols"... you take those away? Because while the "raids" may've cause some damage? In the larger picture they didn't influence the war truthfully that much. I would say she definitely earned her stars for the "Doolittle Raid", Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz but, beyond that? Once she heads home to Bremerton for overhaul and refit? When she comes back out? She is now one carrier amongst many, she is performing duties no different than those of any of the newer Essex-Class carriers are performing and doing just as well.
      Honestly, if "battle stars" were a good measurement, awarded and based upon merit, operational impact and significance of an operation and.or campaign? Enterprise truthfully would only have been awarded probably between eight to twelve battle stars, which still isn't bad... it's nowhere near twenty but, not bad.

    • @nicksignore8301
      @nicksignore8301 2 місяці тому +4

      Battle 360, baby! But yes, something more current would be good.

    • @gbonkers666
      @gbonkers666 Місяць тому +1

      @@nicksignore8301 Yes!

    • @Zarastro54
      @Zarastro54 Місяць тому

      We’ve had Band of Brothers, the Pacific, and now Masters of the Air. It’s time for the Navy to get their own focused mini series.

    • @TrickiVicBB71
      @TrickiVicBB71 Місяць тому +1

      Battle 360 when the history channel was history. Graphics are extremely dated. But the best series there is about the ship

  • @jaegerbomb269
    @jaegerbomb269 2 місяці тому +10

    Midway is a guilty pleasure of mine. I know it's flawed, but I enjoyed it. You may judge me.

  • @SCATXXV
    @SCATXXV 2 місяці тому +7

    there were more inaccuracies in this interview than the movie
    Top is 1 bomber made it, not 2. They were interned for 1 year, not the rest of the war
    3 were executed, 1 died in captivity.

    • @shironasama0445
      @shironasama0445 Місяць тому +1

      Yep, not to mention it was only 1 ship IJN Arashi that stayed behind to hunt Nautilus not “several”

  • @joshuawells835
    @joshuawells835 2 місяці тому +7

    In college, the history department saw this film in theaters and then the next day had a Q and A. My professors said they normally don't watch historical films because, being historians, they cannot decide whether to watch it for entertainment or history. They're also the people who would tell you, "If you want to learn the history of something, take a history class."
    I did come across a Facebook post about a comment made by Admiral Nimitz when he arrived in Pearl Harbor to assess the damage. When asked what he thought, he allegedly said, "Either the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attacking force could make or God was watching over America."
    Mistake 1-The attack ultimately came on a Sunday, when 9/10 sailors were on shore leave. Had the Japanese lured out the fleet to sea and attacked it there, it would have been the difference between 3,800 and 38,000.
    Mistake 2-The Japanese were so focused on Battleship Row that they forgot to attack the dry-docks, meaning the ships damaged could be refitted and relaunched without having to haul them all the way back to the mainland.
    Mistake 3-As mentioned, the Japanese neglected the fuel depots.

  • @kevinfright8195
    @kevinfright8195 2 місяці тому +6

    For me personally, Midway was the turning point around sea. It gave the US breathing space to really come on line. As a Brit l salute the US Navy for this great victory.

    • @distracting_games
      @distracting_games 27 днів тому

      While a popular and successful battle, it was hardly a turning point. Frankly, the US came more prepared to win, and brought more aircraft to the fight than the Japanese did. While. It did take out almost 200 IJN aircraft, and take out 4 ships, it didn't have a significant impact on Japanese overall ability to wage war. It wasn't until the Guatalcanal campaign later that year that we really start to see the turning point of the war.

  • @daleogilvie3576
    @daleogilvie3576 Місяць тому +3

    Well, having a high opinion of this movie and being well read on Midway I was interested to see why this movie was considered bad. I watched this review, and could not detect any historical issues with the movie from your review. This makes the movie "good" from a historical perspective. Quibbles about cgi aside, this movie is great. The question about whether Dick Best was injured at midway or later was probably the worst historical inaccuracy in this review :-)

  • @PamMullinax-q2c
    @PamMullinax-q2c 22 дні тому +2

    When you're making a 2 hour movie to chronicle 6 months of history, what should you expect?
    It's a great movie with a great cast and well worth the time to watch. If you want accuracy, read a book or watch a doc. If you want entertainment, watch a movie.

  • @michaelwong9411
    @michaelwong9411 2 місяці тому +3

    The film's problem was that it tried to do too much. They covered Pearl Harbour, the Battle of Coral Sea, the Doolittle Raid, and the Battle of Midway in 138 minutes. There's no way to do that without rushing, and when you're rushing, you don't spend enough time in any given situation to really feel those emotions or feel the gravity of the situation. It feels soulless because it was so rushed.

  • @theworldwariioldtimeradioc8676
    @theworldwariioldtimeradioc8676 Місяць тому +1

    When I watch World War II themed films I try to keep in mind that they are movies, not documentaries. What also has to be taken into consideration is the era in which the film was made as well. Different generations have different points of view. It will always be that way.

  • @fireshack6485
    @fireshack6485 2 місяці тому +3

    One of the few positive things in this movie was the portrayal of the devastation of the Japanese carriers hit by the Enterprise dive bombers. Kaga was hit by at least 4 bombs while the Akagi was only hit by Best's single bomb. The secondary explosions from 80,000 lbs. of ordinance as well as aviation gasoline completely destroyed the Kaga. The damage on Kaga was so extensive that the fires burned all the way down to the bottom of the hangar deck."
    Best's single bomb strike penetrated the flight deck and exploded in the upper hangar. This caused secondary explosions amongst the torpedo planes that had been fueled and armed, waiting to be brought up to the flight deck and launched.

  • @behindthespotlight7983
    @behindthespotlight7983 Місяць тому +2

    The CGI is also a bit tinny. It looks a tad like Titanic (1997). Granted the workload for the CGI artists was immense and ultimately looks passable. But there are many scenes where it looks a bit 2 dimensional. That flat, shadowless tone is the death of CGI. But it doesn’t interrupt suspension of disbelief either. Overall. a good picture. But is it “better” than the 1970’s effort?

  • @DanielAllyn-rj9ch
    @DanielAllyn-rj9ch Місяць тому +3

    I have been an adamant studied of the Battle of Midway for 67 years starting at the age of 10. The best thing the Movie did was show the reality of the code breakers’ capability. About only 10% of the coded transmission was known It was the ability of the code breakers to correlate seemingly different subject messages that was their genius
    The worst thing was the attempt to cover the first 6 months of the war in the Pacific but leave out major events that impacted this battle. I understand that making a movie requires making choices in order to limit length.
    I believe the battle of Wake Island played an important role in showing that the Japanese made mistakes in underestimating the American ability to fight
    This in juxtaposition to the loss of the Philippines deserves mention concerning American tactical thinking particularly later in the war
    Strategically the biggest mistake the Japanese made was using a complex plan with too many parts instead of concentration of force on the main target. Had their carrier group, invasion force, and following Battleship group been combined they probably would have won
    An often forgotten fact is that when a battleship and first line carrier operated together, neither the carrier or the battleship was ever sunk. The battleship provided the antiaircraft power while the carrier provided air cover. Thus became standard US doctrine with the introduction of fast battleships. In the interim the US used AA light cruisers to fill the gap

  • @richardboll8763
    @richardboll8763 Місяць тому +2

    The Dolittle Raid’s importance on Midway cannot be underestimated. The Japanese Army wanted continued southeast movement and wanted the Navy’s Kido Butai in support. Yamamoto recognized that the post Pearl Harbor US carrier raids indicated that the Japan’s defensive perimeter was inadequate. He wanted to draw the US fleet into a decisive engagement. The Dolittle Raid silenced the Army and cleared Yamamoto’ path to Midway.

  • @charleslarrivee2908
    @charleslarrivee2908 2 місяці тому +21

    No, it isn't. It gets praise from none other than Craig Symonds and Jonathan Parshall, for being faithful in spirit to the events even if not in every exact detail (Parshall in particular is a bit annoyed by Dick Best's portrayal, since he actually met Best IRL

    • @robertdendooven7258
      @robertdendooven7258 2 місяці тому +2

      Actually, Parshall never met Dick Best even though he came close to meeting him at least once. But he knows people who had met Best in real life.

    • @trenteaston3515
      @trenteaston3515 2 місяці тому +4

      I thought Parshall hated the movie? He said as much during an interview with drachinifel about "The Worst War Movies Ever"

    • @jimdunigan7029
      @jimdunigan7029 2 місяці тому +2

      @@trenteaston3515 he did indeed. He was consulted on it and they pretty much did what they wanted anyways.

    • @danielchipman8967
      @danielchipman8967 2 місяці тому +5

      Symonds seemed to not mind it at all. Parshall was more annoyed. Having participated in many tv shows, he admitted to understanding that people making movies/tv shows have to do some freelancing to make the story interesting to 'non-geeks'. But totally changing Best's character was way out of line.

  • @scldef2223
    @scldef2223 2 місяці тому +7

    I was stationed on Ford Island when they filmed this movie and I got to see all the props and equipment all over the island. Unfortunately, I don't remember seeing any actual filming, but people and workers were all over and it was neat!

  • @tcofield1967
    @tcofield1967 2 місяці тому +2

    The Dauntless was surprisingly maneuverable. It was relatively slow but it could maneuver almost as well as the A6m. Early in the war they were used in the CAP to attack slower moving aircraft like Kates and Vals while the Wildcats tangled with the escorts.

  • @LeePrice-r9u
    @LeePrice-r9u 2 місяці тому +6

    How would you possibly make a movie like Midway without CGI?
    Extremely stupid complaint.
    As a Hollywood movie, it's historically very accurate.
    For a Roland Emmerich movie, that's very surprising considering he made the Patriot.

    • @jimj9729
      @jimj9729 Місяць тому +1

      I've seen much better CGI than this.

    • @Dr_Opal_Winfinger
      @Dr_Opal_Winfinger 22 дні тому

      Also, what CGI would you possibly require for the patriot? I don't think musket fire and rows of soldiers all pulling the trigger simultaneously could be enhanced all that much by generating the graphics. Musket fire doesn't tend to create the biggest explosions, and in The Patriot even large cannons were not tremendously powerful nor able to fire at a rate which created large explosions in a rapid fire.

  • @behindthespotlight7983
    @behindthespotlight7983 Місяць тому +2

    18:18 hey big props to Dennis Quaid and Woody Harrelson for really nailing down the grimaces and other expressions of Nimitz and Halsey.

  • @dfmrcv862
    @dfmrcv862 Місяць тому +20

    "Midway has more CGI and is less quotable so it's not as good as the Patriot."
    What kind of logic is that????

    • @francischambless5919
      @francischambless5919 Місяць тому +3

      Agreed. As far as the bombing of the carriers part, it's a movie.... They had to up the suspense for the plebs, otherwise they'd watch a documentary instead of a movie.

    • @dfmrcv862
      @dfmrcv862 Місяць тому +5

      @@francischambless5919 I think they only mentioned two or three inaccurate details the movie got, all of them basically being movie changes to ensure the audience got a clear picture.
      "Oh the planes didn't get all shot down that quickly"
      But they did all get shot down. None of that flight made it back.
      "Oh the Nautilus wasn't that high up"
      Sure, but it's easier to show the danger the Nautilus was in that way.

    • @francischambless5919
      @francischambless5919 Місяць тому +3

      @@dfmrcv862 I was just happy the Nagato was shown (although I'd love her to be shown more). What a beautiful ship. The Japanese had a knack for making some seriously beautiful ships then. Always wished we'd have taken her a prize for display instead of nuking her twice after the war.

    • @saiajin82
      @saiajin82 22 дні тому +2

      Awful logic, the Patriot was an attempt at a blockbuster POS.

    • @saiajin82
      @saiajin82 22 дні тому +1

      @@francischambless5919 I just made the exact same point. Nobody is going to the theaters to watch a documentary....come on!

  • @leslieschwab3044
    @leslieschwab3044 2 місяці тому +3

    Having studied many World War 2 battles; Midway, in particular, I enjoyed this version considerably more than the 1976 version. Other military historians praised its historical accuracy, given some deviation in employing a certain degree of artistic license. "Tora, Tora, Tora" was another historically accurate film on the Pearl Harbor attack..

  • @jstappin
    @jstappin Місяць тому +4

    Hollywood CGI effects and embellishments aside, this was actually very historically accurate from a narrative point of view.

  • @gbonkers666
    @gbonkers666 Місяць тому +3

    It was pretty accurate, but people don't like CGI anymore. They are constantly bombarded with it. However, I like this more than the one with Charlton Heston and the raw combat footage of historically inaccurate planes, which is recycled throughout the film.

  • @WatchMaga
    @WatchMaga Місяць тому +2

    My wife and I watched Midway last year expecting it to suck, having heard the critic's consensus. Holy smokes did we enjoy it! We loved it. Moreover; I learned stuff about Midway I didn't know before, and thought I was a WW2 grognag

  • @davidearls1926
    @davidearls1926 2 місяці тому +7

    I forgot to mention an inaccurate depiction of Washington's help with code breaking. There was a bitter relationship between the Hawaiian code breakers and the code breakers in DC. They question the decision to go to Midway. They still believed that the Japanese Navy would strike further south in the Pacific. Later in the war, Rochford would be sidelined by DC because of the jealousy that he and his team were correct. Sorry for being so windy. Dave

    • @bobhietanen1720
      @bobhietanen1720 2 місяці тому

      He was removed also because he was supposed to pass info to king but he bypassed king and sent it to Nimitz instead

  • @kieranb7582
    @kieranb7582 2 місяці тому +5

    "Those Torpedo Bombers really took a hit, going in low and slow in aircraft designed before WW2" The Swordfish says hi.

  • @ukmediawarrior
    @ukmediawarrior 2 місяці тому +11

    I thought it was just one destroyer, the Arashi, who stayed behind to try and sink the Nautilus, not a few ships?

    • @Warszawski_Modernizm
      @Warszawski_Modernizm 2 місяці тому +5

      and you are correct. And the Arashi was the one vessel US planes spotted catching up with Kido Butai, and trailed her and hit the bulls eye.

    • @jimdunigan7029
      @jimdunigan7029 2 місяці тому

      @@Warszawski_Modernizm which is why McClusky and Best were rank amateurs along with the whole EAG(Enterprise Air Group), without Arashi they don't put warheads on foreheads on June 4th... YAG(Yorktown Air Group)were the consummate professionals and veterans of ACTUAL combat action. They made up 45 minutes on BOTH Task Force 16's air groups and hit the enemy coordinated, the only air group to do so during the entire battle, and Yorktown's Wildcats were the ONLY carrier-borne fighters to engage the enemy at ANY point during the entirety of the engagement.

    • @baritonewoman4702
      @baritonewoman4702 10 днів тому

      @@jimdunigan7029 Yorktown Air Group's combat experience was at the Coral Sea battle the month before.

  • @johnpedulla8210
    @johnpedulla8210 2 місяці тому +3

    It’s worth noting that during the battle 4 B-26’s did actually attack the Japanese carriers, a lot more were shown in the film, however it wasn’t from a medium altitude with bombs as shown in the film but rather with torpedos. The B-26 was able to carry a Mk 14 Torpedo inside the Bomb bay. One B-26 was shot down and nearly hit the bridge of a Japanese carrier. Of the four B-26’s two were shot down and two returned however both were scrapped after due to the major amount of damage sustained. The B-26 had at the time been under evaluation by the Truman commission and their losses here didn’t help their case however their role in the battle for midway I think was a better showing of their capabilities rather than an example of their shortcomings. The four B-26’s were attacked by an estimated 50 Japanese zeros along with the Japanese fleets immense flak barrage and two were still able to return. This is pretty amazing considering they were not designed as torpedo bombers and were much larger two engined planes. Much larger than the contemporary B-25 to boot. The B-26 showed off its ruggedness in this battle which would be a trait of the plane. The B-26 had the lowest combat loss rate during the war but it’s never really given it’s recognition due to its early on bad reputation.

    • @chardtomp
      @chardtomp 2 місяці тому

      The ineffectual glide bombing attack was made by Marines flying the outdated Vindicator dive bombers off of Midway Island. Most of the pilots were new and inexperienced and the C.O. didn't feel they were up to the demands of actual dive bombing. There were also attacks made by B-17s off Midway, but they didn't score a single hit.

  • @joeblow2069
    @joeblow2069 Місяць тому +5

    The film is historically accurate. Appropriately pays homage to the heroes that won the battle.
    Is not inundated with politically correct nonsense which was a surprise.
    I like how they include the Doolittle raid which is important to the history of that battle. It made the Japanese more desperate.
    It is a good war film.

    • @cromlives6602
      @cromlives6602 Місяць тому

      The Doolittle Raid was only added because they needed to include China somehow in the movie because it was largely founded by China.

    • @joeblow2069
      @joeblow2069 Місяць тому +2

      @@cromlives6602 WTF are you talking about? China was being occupied by Japan.

  • @Geronimo_Jehoshaphat
    @Geronimo_Jehoshaphat 2 місяці тому +16

    Proof that historical accuracy is the enemy of enthralling cinematic myth telling.

    • @NCR-National-Reclamation-Gov
      @NCR-National-Reclamation-Gov 2 місяці тому

      yup

    • @OgYokYok
      @OgYokYok 2 місяці тому +2

      Historically accurate means it shouldn’t be PG.

    • @Geronimo_Jehoshaphat
      @Geronimo_Jehoshaphat 2 місяці тому

      @@OgYokYok
      Well I don't guess all the profanity from real life would necessarily be documented in minutia for preservation in the historical archive of the events. 😂

    • @OgYokYok
      @OgYokYok 2 місяці тому +1

      @@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat You wanna be historically accurate then be historically accurate. War is gross and it’s profane, so show it.

    • @NicholasLee-t9s
      @NicholasLee-t9s 2 місяці тому

      @@OgYokYok How do you show a gross war film in a naval movie which is all shown in the skies and sea. I think it does it's fair share of 'grossness' with the burnt bodies post-Pearl Harbor, the Chinese guy being tortured at the end. Not sure how you can get a fully 'gross' film with a movie with all its combat being naval and aerial.

  • @themaximumgamer7834
    @themaximumgamer7834 Місяць тому +2

    21:50 fun fact: Though the scene is real (if not a little dramatized), the main inaccuracy is the fact that he immediately went to see Halsey. It's reported that he actually hid after the incident because he left his station to man the machine gun and didn't want to get in trouble

  • @daveneumanthankyou5117
    @daveneumanthankyou5117 2 місяці тому +2

    My biggest problem with the movie was the total lack of coverage of the fighter squadrons. I don't think they even mentioned or showed an American fighter or their role in the battle. Also, they breezed over the Japanese attack on the U.S. fleet. All they showed was a burning Yorktown after it happened.

  • @NightHeronProduction
    @NightHeronProduction Місяць тому +1

    The best way I would describe the movie Midway would be that it is accurate in the events and sequence of events that it portrays but does so in an exaggerated fashion, as if it were being told through the eyes of an enthusiastic child reanacting events with his toy planes and ships.
    Great review!

  • @davidlawrenz2061
    @davidlawrenz2061 26 днів тому +1

    I loved this movie. I found it to be accurate and entertaining. My teenage and preteen kids enjoyed it and the were exposed to a historically accurate movie. The complaints of CGI are a nonstarter for me. No reasonable person should expect a movie to recreate virtual effects, the cost would prevent the accuracy from reaching the screen. I feel like the approval and disapproval of these movies is limited to how much CGI is used. I imagine there was was a time when people complained about microphones and even makeup as not being real.

  • @elvisbjones
    @elvisbjones 17 днів тому +1

    The biggest issue that I had with this movie was that he didn’t feature or mention Jack Dusty Kleiss at all. Just like dick best he also landed two bomb hits on both the early attack and the later attack during the battle

  • @parrot849
    @parrot849 Місяць тому +1

    There is an important point neither of you mentioned that the film failed to get right, and is basically omitted from the film…
    The U.S. Navy’s overall at-sea operational commander for the Battle of Midway was not Admiral Raymond Spruance, it was Admiral Frank “Jack” Fletcher.
    Spruance was Fletcher’s subordinate. Spruance only took charge of battle after Spruance inquiring of his commander, Admiral Fletcher, over TBS, how to proceed now that the attacks that devastated the three carriers of the Kido Butai had been accomplished.
    Only then did Admiral Fletcher turn over tactical/Operational control of the Midway operation to Spruance. This was because Fletcher was operating from Yorktown and she was damaged and her effectiveness was at issue. Spruance was embarked on an undamaged USS Enterprise. Fletcher concluded Spruance would be in a better position to control/conduct matters at that point.
    Fletcher has always received an historical backhand to the face for a number of reasons; Reasons which I won’t bother to get into in this single comment.
    Spruance was a great admiral and probably at the end of WW2 should have received that fifth star that instead went to Halsey.
    Be that as it may, Fletcher, not Spruance, was in charge of the U.S. naval forces that destroyed the three Japanese aircraft carriers that June 4th in 1942.
    Spruance was in tactical command only during the subsequent search for, and destruction of the fourth and last carrier, Hiryu.

  • @lippertwe
    @lippertwe 2 місяці тому +2

    Despite the headline and some initial implications in the video, I thought you two were quite effusive in your praise about the film. It was only some small bits that you objected to - while acknowledging that they were done for understandable cinematic purposes. Concerning the AA fire intensity - it might have been inaccurate, but I suspect to a pilot diving into it, the AA felt like it was that intense. I have never been a pilot, but if I was, and I was dive bombing, any AA would be too much and feel like it was a soup of hell.

  • @rankoorovic7904
    @rankoorovic7904 2 місяці тому +6

    Movie was better then i expected as far as for historical accuracy it's Hollywood

  • @bulfin21
    @bulfin21 2 місяці тому +7

    I'm confused, ye lads spent the first few minutes of this video talking about how historical poor, from a navy point of view, this movie was. Apart from the CGI, which I don't think you should even talking about, and a bit of dramatic licence, the two of you spent the entire review nodding and saying how it was historical fairly accurate. I mean ye laughed before the review about how bad it was , that's not what came across in the video

  • @coniccinoc
    @coniccinoc 27 днів тому +1

    This movie sparked a Pacific battle obsession of mine. I love 2019 Midway.

  • @my-back-yard
    @my-back-yard Місяць тому +2

    In the 70's Midway, the introductory credits are played in front of the Doolittle raid.

  • @kotori87gaming89
    @kotori87gaming89 2 місяці тому +13

    "Midway" is an excellent example of why "historically accurate movie" and "good cinema" are two separate concepts. A movie is not inherently good because it is historically accurate, nor is a movie inherently bad because it is not historically accurate. The gold standard is to be both, but movies rarely succeed at that. In this case, "Midway" had severe problems with basic writing and directing. No amount of CG or historical accuracy can fix those problems.

    • @DrBugz-h1q
      @DrBugz-h1q 2 місяці тому +1

      If directors made WWII movies they way they actually looked from a distance, they would be boring. And no matter how gory or violent the close-in scenes of combat are, they will never convey the true terror of being there that those men must have experienced.

  • @tjbison8430
    @tjbison8430 2 місяці тому +3

    YES! FINALLY SOME PROPS FOR DUSTY KLEISS! Very good of you two to acknowledge his incredible contributions to that battle. "Battle 360" is the only documentary I've seen giving him props. Nice job guys.

  • @allegedkurd
    @allegedkurd 2 місяці тому +2

    It's got bad CGI, and the plot is too busy, as you noted, but the casting was really good, and I enjoyed some of the smaller details they included

  • @don_5283
    @don_5283 2 місяці тому +6

    Wait a minute... Did I miss the part where Tom was supposed to talk about what he considered a "good" Navy film?

  • @sparky8506
    @sparky8506 2 місяці тому +65

    Im sorry, but who thinks this movie is bad??

    • @hiramnoone
      @hiramnoone 2 місяці тому +24

      Not me. Although I think they're right that the film tried to take on too much, historically. But at least they didn't ruin it with a sappy, misplaced, highly intrusive love triangle romance like they did with "Pearl Harbor".

    • @bulfin21
      @bulfin21 2 місяці тому +4

      Absolutely agree

    • @benjaminbuchanan7151
      @benjaminbuchanan7151 2 місяці тому +16

      It may be mostly accurate, but the acting is kind of abysmal. There were so many lines in the movie that I found myself thinking, is this how real people talk?

    • @bulfin21
      @bulfin21 2 місяці тому +4

      @benjaminbuchanan7151 very true, but Reel History is about the accuracy of the movie from a historical point of view. We need to forget about the acting and the regrettable script. Overall, it was accurate enough to entertain and teach

    • @Bigrago1
      @Bigrago1 2 місяці тому +2

      More of a lost opportunity

  • @hiramnoone
    @hiramnoone 2 місяці тому +3

    Of course with the Doolittle raid, those B25s were never going to fly back to the carrier anyway (could take off a carrier deck but no way they could land on one), so ditching those planes was their only alternative given that extra 150 miles meant they'd never reach an airstrip as far away as Chunking which was part of the original plan.
    There's an interesting mystery surrounding the plane that landed in Russia, and the likelihood that the facts may not have fit very well with the official story.
    Yeah, the Doolittle raid may have been a greater shock or at least *as* great a psychological shock to the Japanese as Pearl Harbor was to Americans.

  • @AnimatedAirlines
    @AnimatedAirlines Місяць тому +4

    A few things I personally wished to see were the Wildcats play a part in the battle, the use of Oscars instead of Zeros during the Marshall Islands raid(if i understand correctly, the IJA didnt use Zeros but rather Ki-43s and later into the war, Ki61s), and smaller things like the B-25 variants being the accurate ones (B-25C i think) and without the gun pods.
    Honestly while the CGI was front and center, it's obviously not possible to do a film of this scale without it and what work the artists were able to do looked fine to me.

    • @Spooky1862
      @Spooky1862 Місяць тому +1

      @AnimatedAirlines The Marshalls were defended primarily by the Imperial Japanese Navy, not the Army. The Japanese fighters we see there should be of the Mitsubishi A5M “Claude” type, which was an open-cockpit monoplane fighter with fixed landing gear. It was the predecessor of the “Zeke.”

    • @AnimatedAirlines
      @AnimatedAirlines Місяць тому +1

      @@Spooky1862 ah, got it, thanks! The Claude was also in China, right? Or am I thinking of a different one?

    • @Spooky1862
      @Spooky1862 Місяць тому

      @@AnimatedAirlines You’re right! The Claude first saw action against the Chinese. According to the Wiki article, one of the fighters it went up against there was the Boeing P-26, a very similar airplane. I didn’t know we’d sold any of those to Chaing Kai-shek; I do remember reading that a Filipino squadron flew the P-26 during the 1942 Japanese invasion.
      Like you, I noticed that they goofed on the B-25s on the Doolittle raid, using the late-war H model instead of the B-25C.
      I used to build a bunch of these planes in 1/48 scale when I was younger! Hasegawa and I think Tamiya have really good kits of the Japanese types, including the Oscar and the Ki-61 Tony!
      You’re also right about the Zero-those were flown by Japanese Naval units only, but the Allies didn’t know that in the early days of the war. I have a complete 1980s reprint of the WW2 US Navy recognition manual designed for submarine officers. In the back there’s a section on Japanese planes, where they mistakenly describe the Zero as a “Japanese Army and Navy fighter.” They were probably confusing it with the Ki-43 Oscar.

    • @AnimatedAirlines
      @AnimatedAirlines Місяць тому +1

      @@Spooky1862 dude, that's sick! Thanks for this info!
      Im definitely hoping to animate some stuff relating to the Ki61 in the future since it looks like such a cool aircraft design

    • @Spooky1862
      @Spooky1862 Місяць тому +1

      @@AnimatedAirlines Yeah, the Kawasaki Ki-61 is an interesting design for the Japanese-it was the only fighter they built that didn’t have a radial engine, at least not at first. Late in the war they replaced the inline engine with a radial and called the result a Ki-100. That was probably the best-performing fighter plane the Japanese ever built.

  • @captwrecked
    @captwrecked 2 місяці тому +4

    Dick Best scarred his lungs and Midway was his last flight before being medically retired from service. He ended up with TB and a 100% disability pension. His o2 bottle released caustic soda fumes and by the time he landed after the battle he was coughing up blood. He definitely had complications until he passed in 2001.

    • @greenAbbot
      @greenAbbot Місяць тому +1

      Yeah, this seems like something that should have been checked on BEFORE making the video. It’s one thing to get it wrong, but it’s pretty bad when the thing you are criticizing gets it right and you mistakenly “correct” it.

  • @jimturner1600
    @jimturner1600 2 місяці тому +5

    The later Midway at least gave Best his long overdue recognition and displayed battles in a more intense manner than the Midway of the 1970s. I wasn't overly concerned with the cgi. Not everyone can Oppenheimer a bomb. But overall, the Emmerich story was choppy on context. Always felt the 70s version did a better job outlining the sea battle, but marred the history by replacing people like Best for a drawn-out made-up-for-TV family drama featuring Heston.

  • @qbertq1
    @qbertq1 2 місяці тому +1

    My big problem with Midway is that it uses too much if its runtime telling the story of Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid. They could have done a Fellowship of the Ring-esque prologue in 5 minutes to catch people up to June, 1942 and then had more time to actually cover the Battle of Midway. The result is the film focuses almost entirely on the Enterprise and its aircrews.

  • @StephenLuke
    @StephenLuke 2 місяці тому +7

    The CGI sucks, but the historical accuracy scenes are a treat!!! 😁👍🏻

  • @Nomad-vv1gk
    @Nomad-vv1gk Місяць тому

    On December 7, 1941, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was in a position about 200 miles north of Oahu, Hawaii, where he led the surprise air attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first major U.S. Navy fleet action against Japan and the first naval engagement in history in which the participating ships never sighted or fired directly at each other. The entire battle was fought using aircraft launched from aircraft carriers, meaning the ships remained out of visual range and never fired directly at one another.

  • @quoctong
    @quoctong 2 місяці тому +3

    Movie is great and don’t mind the over cgi side of the movie. Yes, some melodramatic scenes but it was decent.

  • @johnrichards4976
    @johnrichards4976 2 місяці тому +2

    This video has several huge historical inaccuracies - Midway was NOT Yamamoto's retribution for the Doolittle raid. Yamamoto's chief of staff presented the plan for the Midway operation to the General Staff on the same day the Hornet left the west coast loaded with Dolittle's B-25's. The Midway op was approved before Dolittle's raid.
    The Aleutian invasion was NOT a diversion, it was a separate operation requested by the Japanese Army. Yamamoto agreed to so the Army would not object to Midway.
    The "naval historian" in this video does not seem to know much about Midway - as evidenced by his uncertainty about a B-26 that nearly collided with Akagi.
    About the movie: I read an interview with Roland Emmerich as the film was being released, where he described how he had tried for 10 years to make a movie about the battle, as it would make a great film. I agree, it would - but this is not that movie. It's not that it's bad as entertainment, and much. much better on the history than I expected, but it's not a great movie.
    The issue is not so much the CGI as it is lazy screen writing. They chose to focus on Dick Best, not because they had anything interesting to say about him, but so they could show the Hiryi blowing up like the freaking Death Star.
    Since they did not have anything to say about him, they made stuff up about him. That included showing him as a reckless idiot that spent a ridiculous amount of time onshore, even night clubbing with his wife (who was on the West Coast for the entire war). The time Enterprise spent at Pearl Harbor for the early war was best measured in hours.
    Dick Best may have done more to win the battle than any individual (he sunk the Akagi almost single handedly), but he was not the hero of the battle. Veterans would tell you that the heroes were the guys that did not come home.

  • @rossbooth4635
    @rossbooth4635 2 місяці тому +1

    We'll see if you guys change my mind, but I thoroughly enjoyed Midway, and think it's easily in Emmerich's top 3 movies. My grandfather (same first and last name) was a bomber pilot and fought in the battle, and I saw it with my extended family.

  • @Liam_Mellon
    @Liam_Mellon 2 місяці тому +8

    Midway isn't "bad," it's got good characters and it tells a really good story. It's just that the dialogue is overly expository and the digital effects aren't up to par for the time. It's a mixed bag overall

  • @korbendallas5318
    @korbendallas5318 25 днів тому

    41:05 That appears to be common overdramatization. The repairs were prepared by engineers flown to the carrier on route, and replacement parts were made and already waiting well before she entered harbor. It was by no means a small feat, but it wasn't the "you have 72 hours" rush job often claimed.

  • @gaels8654
    @gaels8654 Місяць тому

    I had the privilege to meet Joseph Taussig in the mid-1990's during meetings of the Defense Fire Protection Association. As a Lieutenant, Taussig was the officer of the deck of USS Nevada and senior officer in charge of her anti-aircraft batteries during the Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Taussig was severely wounded in his leg, practically severed, and wondered what his foot was doing up by his head? He refused to leave his station, and directed the USS Nevada's air defense fire until after NEVADA was run aground on the beach, and the attack was over, when the crew forcibly carried him away. He ended up having his leg amputated, then returned to duty three days later. He wrote in his memoirs that the gun tubs for the 40mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft weaponry had been installed some months before but not the weapons. During the attack the battleships had to rely on their 3-inch guns which performed surprisingly well. Something he saw during the attack that he felt needed more attention were the fires caused by the multiple bomb hits on the NEVADA. Shortly after he returned to active duty he surveyed the battleships and noted that all the bomb hits caused only superficial damage, EXCEPT FOR THE CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE TO THE USS ARIZONA. [[ I have read that there was a COLOR MOTION PICTURE CAMERA on a ship TRAINED ON THE ARIZONA FOR THE WHOLE ATTACK. Those in charge of showing the explosion in the theater newsreels across the nation decided to ONLY SHOW THE BLACK & WHITE VERSION OF THE FILM as they were concerned that the COLOR VERSION would raise too many questions about what a fairly rare at that time COLOR MOTION PICTURE CAMERA was doing in the harbor pointed at the ARIZONA during the attack. ]] Joe Taussig later sought a position in charge of fire safety for naval ships and was appointed as a civilian special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy in 1985.

  • @distracting_games
    @distracting_games 27 днів тому

    It's done well for what it is, but there is plenty to be critical of. For reference material, I recommend the book Shattered Sword, but I imagine you guys have already read it.
    For nitpicking, every battleship on Battleship Row in the movie was a Pennsylvania class BB, the Lexington was portrayed as a Yorktown class CV, and most of the heavy cruisers we see in the actual battle is a Kongo class battlecruiser. In the wargames done by IJN combined fleet staff, it was Yamamoto's staff officer, not Negumo, that had a fit when the junior officer struck from the NE. Negumo is also portrayed as being more incompetent than he actually was, and you'd have been hard pressed to find a Japanese admiral that would have acted differently in that situation.

  • @korbendallas5318
    @korbendallas5318 25 днів тому

    One aspect of Midway is too often overlooked: The devastating effectiveness of the Kido Butai's attacks. US forces used 360 planes (minus a couple of Catalinas) to attack Kido Butai, and they scored ~10 hits (possibly less). The IJN used 70 planes for their counterattack, against stronger US defenses (both CAP and AA) and scored 7 hits.

  • @KathyBaptista
    @KathyBaptista 2 місяці тому +13

    Surprised you didn't mention the CGI replica of the Lexington sinking at Coral Sea was a Yorktown class carrier. You would think they could have spent a few extra bucks to have a Lexington CGI.

    • @fembotheather3785
      @fembotheather3785 2 місяці тому +3

      I noticed it.

    • @dongquixote7138
      @dongquixote7138 2 місяці тому +1

      All the BBs in Battleship Row look the same, despite there having been at least three different classes represented there IRL. The biggest giveaway to me was they all have four 3-gun main turrets in the movie.

  • @badgerius1
    @badgerius1 18 днів тому

    A Question about the USS Yorktown: Much is made of the fact that repairs were made so quickly before she steamed to Midway, but has there ever been an analysis of if those same rushed repairs contributed to her being crippled and sank during the battle? Were her damage control capabilities reduced? Her defenses compromised? She could operate aircraft, but might she have survived if she had not been so damaged at the start of the battle?

  • @AllanDeGroot
    @AllanDeGroot 28 днів тому

    Do remember, of the available Officers, Chester Nimitz was probably THE Navy expert on underway replenishment. Which was critical to our conduction of the war. As far as Submarine Torpedoes, the design of the magnetic exploders was British, but BUORD had "Improved" it (screwed it up) to the point where it simply didn't work (there's an excellent video on UA-cam "Failure is like an onion" about the issues with the Torpedoes. Which were Far from restricted to the magnetic exploders(the basically didn't work on acute angled impacts, but sometimes worked on oblique angle impacts) The contact pistols and a poorly placed pivot tube that made the depth keeping mechanism in accurate

  • @MUSTANG_P51
    @MUSTANG_P51 Місяць тому

    46:59 I was actually wondering if you guys were going to comment about the ineffectiveness of our torpedoes during the war.
    As shown during the Marshals raid, and said when Best and the others were sent out to find the Japanese fleet, our torpedoes were ass. They were garbage, and so many pilots and submarine commanders noticed this. One commander, Lawson P. “Red” Ramage would learn of these defects during his first three war patrols as commander of the USS Trout. His torpedoes were so ineffective, that he was forced to use the Trout’s deck guns to take down a Japanese ship. He then brought this to the Bureau of Ordnance, only to be waved off.
    The main reason for the faultiness of our torpedoes was the lack of live fire tests, with the Bureau of Ordnance forcing the Navy to use mock up torpedoes to cut costs. This lasted from December of 1941 to August of 1943.
    Want to learn more about this, watch the Fat Electrician’s video about Commander Ramage.

  • @SuffrnFrmRealNss
    @SuffrnFrmRealNss 2 місяці тому +4

    Stop hatin’ lol. We need more movies like this

    • @Italianplayercvu
      @Italianplayercvu Місяць тому

      Not really, it was quite bland, too spread out and some parts really not done well (8 yamato battleships in a scene, a japanese dd being a battleship, turret models being torpedo tubes...)

  • @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
    @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Місяць тому

    Were the magnetic torpedoes not faulty in the Ark Royal vs Bismarck action? The first fixed U.S. torpedoes were locally upgraded with stronger contact exploder parts made from Duralumin cut from condemned aircraft propeller blades.

  • @danielemlet7885
    @danielemlet7885 2 місяці тому +3

    My father was on the Salt lake City heavy cruiser, part of Halsey escorts.

  • @ChuckG92
    @ChuckG92 2 місяці тому +6

    I was really distracted by the cartoonish cinematography, the wrinkled uniforms made out of the wrong fabric, and some Rod Steiger-level overacting by several very good actors. I immediately got the impression it was made for the Chinese market. Also, and SBD out climbing and jinking with a Zero? Not even in a video game. Also, the Japanese erred not hitting the dry docks.

    • @mr.s2005
      @mr.s2005 2 місяці тому

      Heard that is where they got a bit of the movies funding from, probably the only reason they did focus so much on Chinese helping doolite and the reprisals when that had nothing to do with the battle of midway. Even the first midway movie just showed the bombing and the Japanese talking about the raid.

  • @robertneal4244
    @robertneal4244 Місяць тому

    The few B-26 Marauders based in Midway were equipped with shackles and attempted a torpedo attack on the carriers. No hits were scored and the one B-26 that was shot down did barely miss the carrier because torpedo attacks are made at low altitude and pointed right at the target ship. Showing them bombing from altitude is all wrong.

  • @Stanglishh
    @Stanglishh 9 днів тому

    The damaged American plane that took the run at the bridge of the Japanese ship did actually happen. It came very close to taking out the commander of that task group and he was quoted saying something along the lines of it shocked him because the "Americans weren't supposed to be that brave". Very crazy but very true to what they showed in the film.

  • @namegoeshereorhere5020
    @namegoeshereorhere5020 Місяць тому

    Dauntlesses could pull some pretty hairy maneuvers. LT Stanley W. "Swede" Vejtasa won a dogfight with three Zeros in a Dauntless, mainly because he could out turn them, pulling so many G's I think the gunner passed out but if not was completely unable to operate his gun.

  • @patw1687
    @patw1687 Місяць тому

    It was also the first time I saw someone show an aerial torpedo starting up before it dropped.
    Also, the last Japanese ground offensive in the South Pacific was the battle for Wau in New Guinea. The Japanese Army and Naval air forces that fought in Guadalcanal were also fighting in New Guinea. Between these two actions, the US and Australians devastated the best of Japan's naval aviation.

  • @jakster2806
    @jakster2806 Місяць тому

    Apart for some scenes filmed on location in Hawaii the rest of the movie was shot in Montreal Canada. The set the were created where incredible. The main set was a 3/4 size carrier that included the interior space. And yes I saw all of them as I worked on this movie. Our local production teams are outstanding and will spare nothing to make things as accurate as possible

  • @richardboll8763
    @richardboll8763 Місяць тому

    I am commenting “as we go”…. The question about not knowing if Kido Butai was either north or south is based in fact. Navy radio DF intercepted Japanese comms during the strike recovery. The DF bearing were bidirectional, meaning they reported the Kido Butai as being either 360 or 180 degrees from Hawaii. From Layton’s book, he recalled informing Kimmel of these bearings and him reacting as Halsey did in the movie (dramatic license switch characters, perhaps), but scene was largely accurate. Kimmel realizing his mistake later apologized to Layton.

  • @lawrencef7360
    @lawrencef7360 2 місяці тому +3

    Overall I thought it was a decent movie. While there is a lot of CGI, it's way better than the '77 versions use of incorrect stock footage. Some of the attacks, such as Best's attack on Hiryu, were cringy as he never would have flown along the deck while dropping his bomb. That was way too Hollywood. Some things could have been better explained and felt rushed like the Battle of the Coral Sea (The Japanese objectives and the importance of the battle could have been explained in just a couple of minutes) and the Doolittle Raid. Speaking of the Doolittle Raid, the use of the Norden Bombsight was incorrect. It wouldn't have been useful at the low altitude that the B-25s flew on that raid. One of the raiders designed a cheap bombsight that was better for their purpose
    It was nice to see the attack on Marshall Islands to show that the US was fighting back earlier than most people think. Seeing the Air Group from Midway attacking the Japanese fleet was nice as it helped to explain why the Japanese were slow in rearming their aircraft. The air group had too many B-26s, and they should have been shown carrying torpedoes, not bombs. The Midway SBDs and Vindicators glide bombing as they did historically was a nice touch. Also, seeing the TBDs of VT-8 with single .30 caliber gun mounts was nice. IIRC the had the new double gun mounts but didn't have time to install them.
    While the story centered around the Enterprise, it would have been nice to see more of the Yorktown during the battle. Seeing them getting her back out to sea in 72 hours was nice, but I think they should have shown the Japanese attack on Yorktown and the aftermath.
    I hope that someone who hasn't seen this movie but finds this video, isn't turned off by the title. It's well worth watching if your interested in the subject matter even though it's not perfect.

  • @Blackjack621
    @Blackjack621 13 днів тому

    I agree with your friend Tom Frezze that this version of Midway could have been so much better if they had a historical advisor iron out the numerous Hollywood gaffs. I did enjoy when he mentioned the American pilots probably getting smacked in the eye from their flying helmets. Unfortunately Hollywood took way too many liberties. One I can't stand is the movie showing the TBD Devastators flying with bombs under each wing in addition to the torpedo. They were barely able to get off the carrier deck with just the torpedo. Another major gaff was at Coral Sea where the pilots are standing around on deck rather than getting below deck during a Japanese attack. On a positive note as a former submariner myself I like the inclusion of the Nautilus. Periscope depth on my old boat was 65 feet below the surface. Two last things I want to ask; where was Admiral Fletcher? I didn't see the movie because of its many mistakes. Lastly, what did Tom think of the wrinkled state of the American's khaki uniforms. It looked like no one in the South Pacific owned an iron at that time.

  • @Oldschooldan1
    @Oldschooldan1 Місяць тому

    I have to give them credit for some of the details they picked up on. At the very end of the movie when Dick Best and Dickinson are in the briefing room. The camera pans by the flight board for VB-6, it's only in frame for a second. At the bottom of the board are the letters RIAN. followed by S-B-18 MIA. That was my grandmother's cousin Bert Varian. His plane was shot down, but he was able to make a water landing. He and his rear gunner were last seen getting into a life raft, they were never seen again. It was just a tiny detail that was only in frame for a second, but they got it right, even his flight number.

  • @dalerobinson8051
    @dalerobinson8051 Місяць тому

    My uncle served on Enterprise the first half of the war. Directed one of the 5-inch batteries. Even so, I don't recall his mentioning Midway action! While I find this Midway movie more accurate (especially as regards air craft and ship depictions, admittedly through CGI), I think the "Charlton Heston" Midway movie was more suspenseful in the runup to the battle. Both sides were groping for the other. In the recent movie, so much time was spent on other stuff that they skipped over that.

  • @AbeGreenleaf
    @AbeGreenleaf Місяць тому

    Glad to see this movie panned. The pacing of the movie and the complete lack of depth in the characterizations makes in much more like a series of vignettes than a compelling movie.

  • @tomatowarfare849
    @tomatowarfare849 Місяць тому

    I honestly can't agree here that much, I think for a man who directed this and what we could have expected, for an Hollywood epic like this, getting a movie that combines history and entertainment this well is rare.

  • @mcslashvideos
    @mcslashvideos Місяць тому

    'most likely not', 'probably not', 'if I recall' wow your 'expert' knows his stuff . . . 'technically a damaged B-26 almost hit Nagumo'. John Ford was indeed hit by shrapnel at Midway. And then, 'this actually happened', 'this is correct'. This episode is what's Really That Bad.
    A historically accurate tribute.