CGI vs. Inaccurate real planes

[Hedeby]

We all love a TV series with warplanes (and for that matter tanks, guns etc), however it is not always possible to use working versions of the plane (or whatever) in question. So which do you prefer? Using Models of the real thing? Using CGI to create amazing ‘virtual’ copies, or as in many cases to use the wrong plane or vehicle to represent the intended one. For example, Tiger Moths as SE5s in The Blue Max, M47 Patton Tanks to represent German Tigers/King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge.

My own view is a little mixed, Must confess I hate seeing things like post war US tanks with German crosses pretending to be Panzers (it’s enough to get me to switch off the film), same applies to planes as well. I do love the CGI planes in the Red Baron film even though those responsible don’t know when to stop. For those who have seen 1917, the crash of the Albatross is brilliant.

Just interested to hear others views... obviously there is no substitute for the real thing or a properly made replica.

[mikeemagnus]

CGI is so good these days its difficult to tell it from reality. So CGI for me.

[Stumptonian]

As I added in the Blue Max thread, real planes for me.
CGI looks pretty until they fly like X-Wings

Must confess I hate seeing things like post war US tanks with German crosses pretending to be Panzers (it’s enough to get me to switch off the film)

That's me 100%

[Flying Helmut]

I really can't vote for any of the options - it all depends so much upon how well, and how "accurately" it is all done.

CGI has the greatest potential, by far, but filling the sky with hundreds of Albatros fighters in "The Red Baron" just looked awful, and obvious!
Allowing single planes to perform utterly impossible manoeuvres, like the Nieuport 17s in the execrable "Flyboys", is just as bad.

Wrong thing "mocked up" can be done well, as in "Saving Private Ryan", or really badly as in "Battle of the Bulge".
The trouble with good mock-ups is there can only ever be a very few of them on hand.

Models can work well for single units, such as ships, but if photographed/filmed badly they then reveal their very obvious miniature nature.
Real ships are almost never available nowadays - the use of real vessels in "The Battle of the River Plate" greatly added to the look and believability of that film (especially as two of them were actual participants in the real events - although HMS Cumberland turning up in training-ship configuration, without any turrets took some getting used to!)
Massed models are obvious, time consuming and therefore a no-go.


All things considered, I'd like to vote for CGI, but it would have to be done well, and by someone with a sense of proportion!

[flash]

I'd rather see the real thing, or, a decent replica rather than the wrong thing, models or CGI but, as has been said, it depends how well it's done.

[Hedeby]

Totally agree with the sense of proportion comments Tim, the individual planes in the Red Baron movie look great but the hundreds of swooping albatrosses was ridiculous. Shame really, these digital engineers need reining in, stop over egging the pudding.

[camelbeagle]

As long as it is done well and in realistic fashion it doesn't matter to me. Too much CGI or Poor CGI is just as bad as poor models and horrible stop motion. If it is done well, it is entertaining. Look at Ray Harryhausen's work. Stop motion photography, but it is better than a lot of the modern CGI I have seen. As mentioned earlier in this thread, 1917 had some good special effects. Really loved the air fight and the Albatros crash.

[abovetheclouds]

Tim expressed my own opinions completely. CGI done well by someone who understands the physics of mass and proportion.

[milcoll73]

i chose use the wrong thing mocked up as, frankly most cgi of historical a/c are done rather poorly and its usually quite obvious as the never seem to adhere to the laws of physics (ie "red tails"). of course my choice come with a caveat that the producers of said entertainment give a modicum of effort. for instance ive seen L1A1s being used as stand in for gi m-1 garands and seen a gas mask cut down to serve as a pilots oxygen mask. talk about just plain lazy.

[Diamondback]

If the real thing's not available, my first choice is Practical Model with light CGI massaging. Second choice is GOOD CGI, attention to physics, restrained effects, no "make the biggest bang we can" explosions or lens flares--good CGI should blend so well you can't tell where the reality stops and the CGI starts; classic example being the dinosaurs in the first three Jurassic Park movies.

After that, the inaccurate substitute beats BAD CGI (example, anything Michael Bay, or the two Jurassic World movies).

[gully_raker]

CGI provided it is based on what the actual aircraft were capable of achieving in real life & especially not speeded up for effect!

[Naharaht]

I agree with what people have been writing. Whatever process is used, it must be done well with detailed attention paid to historical accuracy and the laws of physics. However, I did vote for CGI above.

[hokusai]

As a movies and WW-history enthusiast I cannot but agree with what has been said.

However we should understand that feature movies are not intended as documentaries for specialists but as entertainment for a generic audience. 99.9% of audiences simply not know nor care if a M3 half-track is used instead of a sdkfz 251 (I really hate this one)

1) CGI
2) models
3) wrong thing

[zenlizard]

Depends on the type of film for me: if it's not supposed to be a 'historical' film, then stand-ins will do for me, I prefer the story line in those contexts. But garbage representation, whether or not that is models vs CGI vs replicas in what is supposed to be even historical fiction pulls me out of the film. That atrocity that was Perl Harbor made me almost want to vomit.

[Thenur]

When I watch period piece the historical inaccuracy drives me crazy. I think the best approach is to use actual planes, real planes preforming real maneuvers instead of doing things that look cool but are impossible to do in reality, and then use cgi to fix the inaccuracies of the planes being used.

[OldGuy59]

I can remember watching movies where a vehicle would appear and the sight of it being jarring, because I recognized it as being so out of place. Like a M48 in Battle of the Bulge. I also remember seeing the attempts at mock-ups, some bad and some better, but the fact that I recognized then was distracting. Then, there were the movies where I saw stuff that looked odd, but didn't know why. I would later find out there was a stand-in, not the 'right' vehicle.

Do I have a preference? I'd prefer the right vehicle where possible, especially for historical pictures. I'd like the history to be accurate, too. Movies of events where the nationalities portrayed were not participants, but re-imagined, 'artistic licence' pieces are irksome, regardless of the vehicles used.

That being said, it is because I know it is wrong that it bothers me. Anyone here recognize cars well enough to get bothered when a car is used in a movie that wasn't produced until years after the time portrayed? Or when equipment ( like a radio or computer) shown in a scene is way out of the time period of the movie?

I think if the subject is good, or the story engaging, I can suffer the gaffs. Budgets and availability all play havoc with producing movies. When the story and acting are bad, all the other problems become further highlights to the disappointment.