Talk:Flyboys (film)

Random bits

Could something about the lion be added? Who was the trainer? Was there really a lion mascot? If so, what happened to it in real life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.46.65 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least get a "were you looking for Flyboys: A True Story of Courage" or whatever that thing is link? I don't know how to do it, and if you don't have the capitalization exactly correct, it doesn't work. Psycho Medic 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 06:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell do they have some Black guy in this movie?? Its revisionist I tell you, and really when you get down to it, I think most Blacks resent being just token people in films surrounded by white people and that white people fell its revisionist and a waste anyway. So why oh why do they put a Black guy in this movie??????? -That's because it is based on "historical" fact. It is best to consider some basic research before jumping to such conclusions.

i CRY BOLLOCKS TO RACIST AMERICAN above. Look up EUGENE BULLARD!

Did you read the linked entry for the Lafayette Escadrille, the air group featured in the movie? "It can also be noted that the world's first black military aviator, Eugene Bullard, flew with the Lafayette Flying Corps." I obviously haven't seen the film, so who knows what sort of role he plays, but his presence is not revisionist. Protoclown11 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not revisionist in the sense that the Lafayette Flying Corps (though not the Lafayette Escadrille) had a black pilot. The character in the film has the last name of Skinner, so it's obviously just historical fiction. That's not a major fault in the film. There are, however, lots of things to fault the film over. For one thing, it seems to be set in some nebulous time in early to mid 1916, yet they mention "Sopwiths" (presumably a camel, though they are coy about that) and "S.E.5a's". The S.E.5a and the Sopwith Camel were both introduced in June of 1917.

The thing is that typically German aircraft were quite colourful compared to the Allies anyway. For instance, the colourful splinter camouflage shown on the Gotha bomber was common, especially among Albatross Staffels. Even Richtofen's flying circus had colourful aircraft, though not all of them were red. Either Goerings or Lothar Von Richtofen flew an aircraft that was partially red, either the fueselage or wings, but the other parts were a different colour. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'Sopwith's' referred to could be intrepreted as Sopwith Strutter 2-seaters, or even the Sopwith Pup; both of which were around at roughly the time the film is set (unlike the Fokker Triplanes which inevitably Hollywood uses as the main German fighter advisary!) Harryurz 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. There are a number of historical gaffs, though as a film it suffers from being cliche and not spending enough time on the aerial sequences. The Skinner/Bullard character is one of the few things I didn't mind about the film. Agoodall 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that the filmmakers were aware that the Fokker Triplane was out of its correct timeframe, but wanted audiences to be able to instantly distinguish between French and German aircraft. Again, painting them red wasn't historically accurate, but is one of those cases where "Real Life is unrealistic" because people are so used to seeing red triplanes in the movies that they think all of them were red. If anyone can find some source for that (interviews/commentary on the DVD?) that's suitable for the Wiki, it might be worth adding.Brickie (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes rating

I added the rating from the Rotten Tomatoes web site to the Reaction section. The only reaction, so far, was a positive one. Rotten Tomatoes has a wider range of opinions. Agoodall 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This page is for discussion about the actual article, not the topic (see What is a talk page used for?). Colonel Marksman 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Most of the discussion appears to be about the article. Unspecific complaints aren't too helpful either. --Fandyllic 2:18 PM PDT 29 Sep 2006

Other WW I flying films

Just love this one: "However, Flyboys is the first movie to fully explore the nature of World War I aerial combat." Apparently, this writer has never heard of Wings (film), which in addtion to being about this period also happens to be the first winner for the Academy Award for Best Picture ever. Ah, youth.... Perhaps someone can come up with a complete list of WW I flying movies. RoyBatty42 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

There's also the famous WW1 movie BLUEMAX , a great movie made in the sixties , staring George Peppard

Or, Howard Hughes' Hells Angels. In fact, some of the trailer reminded me of colorized versions of parts of Hells Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.94.206 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hell's Angels, good comparison. If you're interested in (some of) the back story on that movie see Scorsese's The Aviator. The most expensive ever made at the time, costing approximately USD$5,000,000, at least $500 million in 2008 dollars.

As for RoyBatty42's suggestiong of a list of WWI flying movies, an effort should be made to include German and French movies as well as English and American.

PainMan (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Aces High (film) Douglasnicol (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeppelin

Is the burning of the Zeppelin realistic? Was there a man operating a gun on top of bombing Zeppelins? --84.20.17.84 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes to the first part. No to the second. No Zeppelins mounted machine guns on the top.Nf utvol 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Er... see this page Zeppelin L30. Specifically the first photo and the last photo - sure looks like a whole bunch of machine guns to me. Dr Faustus AU 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent find, Dr. Faustus. I assume you speak German? Know of any equivalent site(s) in English? There's always Alta Vista or Google's translation pages, but we all know what a stop-gap they are for large passages or entire pages.

PainMan (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

a prototype that never saw any action.--Tresckow (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My only problem with the zeppelin scenes is the fact that about a dozen bullets couldn't penetrate it and set off the hydrogen inside. It didn't take much back then to set a zeppelin on fire2601:7:1C80:28:4193:B57C:CFE6:9EFB (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

EDITED: Filming Errors

I've corrected several things in the article and fixed several spelling errors. I've also removed a sentence which was more towards hostility towards the film, violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I've also included several points made by Tony Bill and Phil Sears in the two-disk edition that were not mentioned in the original article.

VonV (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed two sections

I removed two sections that seemed to me to be editor speculation. Absent confirmation by the filmmakers, I don't see either of these can remain in the article.

(although it is possible this scene was meant to demonstrate the large amounts of inaccurate "scuttlebutt" that was passed along during the war)

and

However, the film might have used it to demonstrate the style of transport ships during the war.

The first statement also seems rather cliched. All wars (even today, with the 'Net and the 24 hour news cycle, some would argue that the latter have made rumor-mongering even worse ) are rife with rumor; particularly in the Great War and WWII, disinformation and/or propaganda helped to contribute to the constant buzz of inaccuracy swirling amongst servicemembers. PainMan (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast

The transformation of the original section is WP:BRD but it introduces superfluous information as in lesser characters. Unless there is an explanation for the change, it will go back to the original format, as this is a stylistic change at best, besides removing a cite. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

We crossed edits here. A cast list is usually not complicated enough to require a table. Since tables take up more room, and are harder to edit, a simple list is often preferable. You also removed some citation requests in your reversion. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also citations are not required for information in the actual credits, so the IMDb stuff is not required for this section.

See your talk page, wasn't sure where you wanted to post. This all revolves around an established style wherein changes alter the direction of the edit, I waited to have your input before any revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC). Let's centralize the discussion to here instead of home talk pages. Here is the note I just left you. There is no preferred style for a cast list but when one is presently in use, changing to a different style for mainly stylistic reasons is not the norm. Besides, there were changes made in one version of the cast list that did not correspond to screen credits as well as in introducing a number of redlinks. Basically, the first style of an edited piece usually predominates, as in WP:LAYOUT although I am not adverse to using lists, a graphic list was first used so that is what I usually go with. FWiW, the same goes for dates, numbers, ENGVAR and other considerations in an already established style. Please do correct any information as needed. Bzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

See your talk page for why I made a "new" list (I didn't just change a table to a list). As for the new citation, are the specific "based on" claims from that book, or just a general statement that the characters are loosely based on real pilots without specifics. The reason I began to wonder, is that there seems to be little to back some of them up in the entries on the real fliers. Raoul Lufbery & Eugene Bullard are obvious, but Frank Luke does not seem to match at all. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted film historian James Farmer (who specializes in aviation history) was able to chronicle the making of the film for Air Classics magazine in 2006. The Frank Luke character is widely out of place as he is not even in the Lafayette Escadrille but served as a regular but decidedly "wild" officer in the U.S. Air Service, specializing in "balloon busting." Tony Bill specifically modeled the Blaine Rawlings character played by James Franco after Luke, using the same Arizona homestead background as well as the unrestrained nature of his flying. Tony Bill is an avid pilot and wanted to emulate the great flying epics of the past. The original intention was to create a much truer to life portrait of the American flyers in the Lafayette Escadrille but the contingencies of Hollywood filmmaking along with the necessity to team with Dean Devlin, led to the decision to veer away from the docu-drama approach that had originally been planned. I have a copy of Farmer's article which formed the basis of the first edits to this article. You should have seen it before (it was much looser and mainly a "slam" piece). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Given a table structure, I moved the based ons to a third column. also reordered to better match film credits. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also deliberately put in Georges Thenault as a red link because he should have an article, I just do not have the sources to do more than a sentence. But will make such a stube later this week if no one does it better. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, It is Lieutenant Giroux not L.T. Giroux, I just checked the film credits which list LT Giroux, but then I listened to Captain Reno's welcome address where he introduces Lt. Giroux (en français, i.e. in French). FWiW, the character is also wearing two chevrons indicating a Lieutenant in the French Army. Bzuk (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

So would that make him Lt. L.T. Giroux?  :-)   —MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No Plot Line

Would it be appropriate to add in more of the story-line? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rotary engines

The latest edit removed a contentious issue in that the filmmakers relied on modern replicas with inaccurate details especially in the use of radial rather than rotary engines. Other aspects were also summarily excised. A more detailed critique should appear here prior to further revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

Inspiration for Movie

The inspiration for "Flyboys" appears to be an editorial in the Nov. 7, 1991 issue of the Shasta College Lance, pg. 3, which covers aspects of WWI flying clearly reiterated in the film. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Impossibility

I'd very much like to add something about the movie's portrayal of pilots having shouted conversations with each other while flying. As anyone who has flown in a biplane with an open cockpit can attest, that is absolute rubbish. The wind speed and the roar of the engine make it utterly impossible to hear someone even in the same plane, no matter how loudly they shout -- and the idea of carrying on a conversation with someone in another plane is completely ridiculous. (That's why WWI pilots communicated entirely with hand signals or flares.) All the movie's innumerable other flaws pale in comparison to this one, which is more than just a historical inaccuracy; it is a scientific impossibility, and a monumental insult to the intelligence of the viewers. FireHorse (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but it is a film, and productions often take liberties with the laws of physics in order to tell a story. Star Wars had laser beams with sound effects but in space, you don't hear sounds. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind a movie taking a few liberties with the laws of physics, as they do in a space opera like Star Wars -- or even chucking science entirely out the window, as they do in an epic fantasy saga like Lord of the Rings. I find it considerably less easy to forgive when a movie pretends to be set in the Real World.

It may seem paradoxical, but having two characters communicate by telepathy over a distance of thousands of miles is more believable than having them carry on a casual conversation 50 feet apart from each other in the open cockpits of WWI biplanes in flight. This is because any movie with telepathy as a feature is openly and honestly asking its viewers to suspend their disbelief in telepathy — but Flyboys dishonestly suggests that the viewers are watching something Real and Historical, something that requires no suspension of disbelief.

And IF a movie is pretending to be set in the Real World, then presenting the viewers with magically silent biplane engines and motionless, sound-carrying blocks of air between moving planes is more stupid — and more of an insult to the viewers — than presenting them with weapons and ships that make noise in space, in a movie that's set in a galaxy far far away… FireHorse (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flyboys (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080824162411/http://www.flyboysdvd.com:80/ to http://www.flyboysdvd.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flyboys (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512043524/http://www.neam.org/lafescweb/le_roster.html to http://www.neam.org/lafescweb/le_roster.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rescue of Lucienne

Would it be acceptable to add the fact that the commander gave Rawlings a chewing out before awarding him the medal? Jokem (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it would. Rwflammang (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Plot section: Accurate?

Wasn't it Jenson who lost his hand, and not Beagle? Rwflammang (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)