Full Metal Jacket is a realistic war movie? The beginning was entertaining, and I stress entertaining, but after that is mostly nonsense, but entertaining nonetheless. Which is the point so many have tried to convey. It's a movie, meant to entertain an audience and make money in the process. I don't think many veterans would consider FMJ a realistic war movie. Now drop down and give me forty maggot breath, before I rip your head off and... Never mind. I would never do that.
At the end of the day it's just a movie and as such is full of Hollywood bologna, so I just watch it with my kids and enjoy the scenery....
N&W Class J posted:At the end of the day it's just a movie and as such is full of Hollywood bologna, so I just watch it with my kids and enjoy the scenery....
Chris, you are totally right. As to my post on page 2, I noticed those things, but acctually I don't find the movie a problem at all. It's a train movie. At least trains made to the movie theater and they were the main characters in Unstoppable. But also don't forget the train movie for TV, Final Run from 1999. That was ok for the time it came out. But again, a lot of people will probably chew that up. But in my opinion, it's just a movie. Enjoy a movie with a train. And as a matter of fact, this evening I watched Superman Movie from 78 that has the Amtrak and New Haven. And from listen, they did use the correct sound of a Hancock Air Whistle. But other then that, enjoy movies with trains in them. One movie comes to mind that had a train scene that was cool was Canadian Pacific in Heaven Is For Real.
MarkLX200 posted:RickO posted:I tell you one thing, the idea of a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State building seems entirely plausible.... until he falls in love with a human female...... what a joke!!
I've seen a few good lookin females out in public with big ugly hairy apes.
Good point! I stand corrected!
I find myself agreeing with a number of posts here, even some contrasting opinions. While I enjoyed the movie and was ready to be "entertained", the premise and foundation of the movie was that of a runaway train and the "drama" that goes with it. In portraying this as a serious dramatic film, I feel (my opinion) that the director needs to maintain accuracy and realism. It takes so much away when this "trust" is broken for effect. I do enjoy Hollywood effects, when they are inline with the premise. A good example would be the star trek spoof Galaxy Quest, not a great movie, enjoyable, but you know what to expect. I wanted to really love "Unstoppable", but I'm onboard with those that compare it to that other recent great train disappointment, Extreme trains.
I listened to the 8888 incident on my scanner. I started to pick up police and fire calls as the train approached Findlay. Followed it all the way till they got it stopped near Kenton. It was almost like listening to an old radio show. I'll never forget hearing "Shots fired, Shots fired" when they tried to hit the shut-off. It was fun watching the movie and comparing it to what I heard on the scanner. "Artistic license" was definitely applied here.
On a side note: There was a CSX wreck at Marysville, OH today on the same line that the 8888 incident happened. I wonder if they will make a movie about this one.
Tom
It's important to remember that much of what you see and hear on TV, movies, and radio is incorrect to some extent. As someone interested in politics, I find it amazing to see coverage of say the recent Iowa caucuses. Even some TV reporters don't seem to understand that a caucus isn't an election - no voting booths, no election judges, etc. You have to take everything with a grain of salt....
As much as I enjoyed "Unstoppable", I have to admit to chuckling through it. Not like the anger I felt watching Agent Carter last week when the villain was listening to big band music on a Bakelite radio in 1920... Or seeing a 50 star flag in a WWII movie... Or watching a plane in Midway take off as a torpedo plane, turn into a fighter and crash as a dive-bomber yet to be built.
Jon 
DOC posted:I wish MTH would of offered the engines. I know I would of picked them up.
So do I see a "who has modeled trains after movies" thread in the near future?
It's been a while since I posted on this topic but the post above is back this morning.... Anyway It doesn't matter where the conductor rides . I'm sure there are times when switching (lifting setting off) especially around a yard when the conductor or yard foreman is no way near the engine and a switch needs lining ahead of the engine.
A good section crew could have derailed the train in no time at all. End result.... a big wreck .
OK, off thread. One my grandfather told me (and I'm 76):
Q. Why is a spanked child like a locomotive?
A. Because they both have a tender behind.
Gregg posted:I'm sure there are times when switching (lifting setting off) especially around a yard when the conductor or yard foreman is no way near the engine and a switch needs lining ahead of the engine.
Unless you're in a yard where ALL of the switches are lined remotely by the yard/trainmaster in the tower
Kent, that has morphed into a license plate holder that says "Model Railroaders have a Tender Behind". I've seen more than one of these at various and sundry train meets.
This thread is Unstoppable!
FX has Unstoppable on and I decided to watch the first 20 minutes. That butthead that "lost" 777 couldn't he just get on the locomotive behind 777 and walk to the front cab? I know it's a movie, but there are so many plot holes.
Larry
It was entertaining!!! Fun watch.
