Masters of the Air Trailers are out

An AppleTV+ series based on the book covering the US 8th Air Force efforts in Europe in WWII.  Produced by the same group that did Band of Brothers and The Pacific.  They certainly capture the age of the aircrews (most of which where barely 20), I am, as always, a bit concerned about too much CGI and bad animation of the aircraft (nothing horrible in the trailers?).  The trailer at least, also looks a bit washed out, at least in the aerial sequences.  This may be an attempt to hide the CGI, but the current state of modeling, this should not be an issue at all. Almost no reason why CGI shots should not be very realistic. Lighting is always an issue, but when you are creating an entire scene, it really shouldn't be (as opposed to plopping CGI within a live shot)

9 part series, starting January 26th 

 2nd Trailer:

Hell yes.

Just in time for Dec 7th.!

I rewatch band of brothers and the Pacific every year, and I'm so stoked to add this to the rotation.

The story is about the 100th Bombardment Group (still exists as an air refueling wing).  This was also the group in the movie Twelve Oh'Clock High.  This will give a bit of the reason they are being covered:

On 25 June 1943, the 100th BG flew its first Eighth Air Force combat mission in a bombing of the Bremen U-boat yards – the beginning of the "Bloody Hundredth"'s legacy. The group focused its bombing attacks against German airfields, industrial plants, and naval facilities in France, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, and Ukraine. The group inherited the "Bloody Hundredth" nickname from other bomb groups due to the number of losses it took from summer to fall 1943; for example only four of the original thirty-eight co-pilots assigned to the group completed their assigned twenty-five mission tour, and there were several instances where the group lost nearly a dozen aircraft on a single mission. During such raid on 10 October 1943, that the 100th BG made on Münster, eighteen aircraft were sent, of which five aborted before reaching the target. Twelve of the thirteen aircraft that reached Munster were shot down; the only surviving 100th BG B-17 to reach Munster and return was the Royal Flush (B-17F-45-VE 42-6087) commanded for this mission by Robert Rosenthal; it returned to base seriously damaged and with several crewmen wounded.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_Air_Refueling_Wing

In reply to aircooled :

The Bloody 100th. I remember seeing a very, very early clip, hell like 12 or 13 years ago. The CGI was abysmal. When I heard they were finally finished, I was very pleased to see the final result.

I remember demanding to see The Memphis Belle when it came out in 1990. Good lawd I was all over that film.

The only concern I have is what and how the story is told. Band of Brothers was a really strong story line to follow and keep track of; The Pacific was not so much. 
 

Both were filmed really well, with particular shout out to The Pacific for the scale of the invasion scenes. For that, I have no real fears of the CGI. 
 

Looking forward to seeing this. 
 

BTW, both Band of Brothers and The Pacific are available on Netflix now. 

alfadriver said:

The only concern I have is what and how the story is told. Band of Brothers was a really strong story line to follow and keep track of; The Pacific was not so much. 

The issue I had with The Pacific was that it didn't stay with the same core group like BoB did, so you weren't as emotionally invested. Other than that, it was extremely well done from a production standpoint.

And it looks like Austin Butler is just going to keep using his Elvis voice from now on. 

I just reread Bomber by Len Deighton. If you want to never go on a bombing raid, read that one. Band of Brothers was great and I'll look forward to this new series.

First two episodes are out.  General opinion is: good.  Give it a look if you can.  It has some interesting details, that a much shorter movie would likely skip over.

It's a bit early to say how it will go.  The first episode certainly jumps into the action, so no slow start, although, similar to Band of Brothers, that might have been a good option.  This could have been (and likely won't be) a great opportunity to set up a sort of Game of Thrones style story, in that, you get to know and like a number of characters, but... don't get attached to them (the losses in the bomber groups, especially this one, where very high).  At this point, there are basically two primary characters (one of which is not even on an active crew).  It's looking like it will focus a lot on the camaraderie of the crews.

I am not sure about the directing. Maybe it could be better? It's not quite as "gritty" as I might have expected, and yet also seems to be shot a bit dark (as in not light). The visuals though, unfortunately are pretty much entirely CGI.  It's good CGI, but it's CGI, and the brain knows.  Just not as good as practical effects (see aerial sequences in Dunkirk).  Pretty much every plane in the show is CGI, even when they taxi.  The battle damage is CGI, and of course any of the aerial external shots are all CGI.  And... of course... whoever animates it, just gets is a tiny bit wrong sometimes.  For example, they show at least a few shot of B17's with a good amount of black smoke coming out of the engines, I am guessing to show lots of power being used.  This is not a thing I have ever seen in any of these old planes.  It's certainly entirely fine in many cases (e.g. looking through the rear gunner glass at the formation), but a bit off in many more.

As I have stated before, CGI is fine.... as a SUPPLEMENT to practical effects.  E.g. a real B-17 (or two, or three) flying in a real sky, then add the rest of the formation (in the background) as CGI.  Could you do the chase sequence in Bullet in CGI?  Certainly.  Would it look pretty good?  Yes.  Would it look as good as or even close to the original.  Absolutely not.  Obviously, monitarily, CGI is WAY cheaper.

Of note is that this is, and never will be an adaption of the book Masters of the Air, because that book is basically a history book, and has no interpersonal stories etc.  I certainly expect the series will follow actually history, as depicted in the book, but there is no real "storyline" to adapt, other then what happened as far as locations, results etc. (which better fricken' be spot on!)

Anyway.  Impressions?

In reply to aircooled :

It's just not that easy to get enough B-17s together. The Memphis Belle did it with 5 Forts. That was in 1990, and those old planes are 35 years older now. I hate CGI, but I understand. Without it, we dont get anything. Regardless,  I'm not signing up for yet another streaming ser6to get thr one show I want. I'll wait for the DVD to come to the local library.

We watched the first one last night, will watch the second one tonight. It was what I expected, which is unfortunate since I was not expecting it to be great. It may still end up pretty good, but I'm not holding my breath.

In reply to aircooled :

Haven't seen it yet, but the darkness you say- in the plane it's dark?  That would really bug me.  A year ago, we got a flight in a B17, and even when below 5000ft, the inside of the plane is really light.  Like exceptionally light- there are openings all over the place.

But I'll not judge it until I see it.

A few first impressions. First off, I rewatched "Memphis Belle" last week for the first time since I saw it in theaters. I also rewatched "The Pacific" over the past few weeks, and found I liked it a lot better the second time around.

The first episode of MotA certainly leans into all the B-17 "tropes". Not to get too spoilery, but there is a LOT of overlap with "Memphis Belle". Diving to put out an engine fire? Check. Landing gear won't go down? Check. Clouds obscuring the target? Check. Ball turret gunner has to be pulled out of his turret mid-flight? Check. Near mid-air collision when forming up in the clouds? Check. Navigator with confidence issues? Check.

The CGI is ever-present. For the most part, it's pretty decent, but it certainly stands out in comparison with "Memphis Belle" which was of course all practical with real Forts and models, having been made in 1990. The acting is.. fine. Characters are pretty archetypal. Austin Butler is almost distractingly handsome, but that's Hollywood, I guess. The story doesn't seem to have a whole lot of nuance so far, unlike BoB or Pacific. This seems to be more of a straight-up hero-worshipping flag waver so far.

So, overall, it's OK. Not great, not terrible. I'll keep watching.

I concur on 'OK' so far.  It seemed to me that the CGI got better in episode 2. The crosswind approach into Greenland was pretty cringey for me as a pilot, including the dubbed in small piston single engine sound.

I think the near-midair actually happened on a regular basis.  I saw a video recently about a B24 crash in Belgium where one of the surviving crew members was previously the sole survivor of a midair over England a month earlier .

XLR99 (Forum Supporter) said:

I think the near-midair actually happened on a regular basis.  I saw a video recently about a B24 crash in Belgium where one of the surviving crew members was previously the sole survivor of a midair over England a month earlier .

A lot of that stuff happened regularly. What stood out to me was that the producers of the show decided to show the exact same 5 or 6 things in the first episode that were in the movie from 35 years ago.

Ah gotcha, I misunderstood what you were saying at first.  Off to find where to watch Memphis Belle again. Its been a long time since Ive seen it.

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

XLR99 (Forum Supporter) said:

I think the near-midair actually happened on a regular basis.  I saw a video recently about a B24 crash in Belgium where one of the surviving crew members was previously the sole survivor of a midair over England a month earlier .

A lot of that stuff happened regularly. What stood out to me was that the producers of the show decided to show the exact same 5 or 6 things in the first episode that were in the movie from 35 years ago.

Just watched the first two episodes last night, and saw that very much.  It's almost as if they were in a rush to point out all of the "commonly known" items in the first two shows.  Including the large amount of damage to the plane that didn't apparently effect how if flew...  On both missions the plane took....

And they also covered a few other common themes- the mess up who redeems himself- from one show to the very next; and then how the Norden Bomb sight was this massive secret and led to precision bombing- even though it wasn't and didn't.  The latter has been debunked for a while now, so I'm not sure why they had to keep it in- they showed the direct hit when that never happened like that.  

Anyway, it's better than most movies, but not as good as The Pacific and a long way from BoB.  And I'll watch the whole thing.  But I can certainly see the hesitation to make it by the studios.

alfadriver said:

And they also covered a few other common themes- the mess up who redeems himself- from one show to the very next; and then how the Norden Bomb sight was this massive secret and led to precision bombing- even though it wasn't and didn't.  The latter has been debunked for a while now, so I'm not sure why they had to keep it in- they showed the direct hit when that never happened like that.  

That doesn't bother me so much, because during the war the Norden really was thought to be some revolutionary technological marvel and was treated as such by the crews. Like, they had to destroy it if there was any chance of the plane falling into enemy hands, for instance. Of course, that all turned out to be a bunch of hooey later on, and "precision" bombing was more marketing by the AAF than anything else. I recommend the book "Bomber Mafia" for a lot more detail on the topic.

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

The part that bothered me was the "lesson" on the Norden followed by the very accurate bombing that never really happened.  It took something that was BS back in the war and just continues the wrong narrative.  Especially after they spent sow much time on how inaccurate British nighttime bombing was- as if the B17's always hit their targets.    According to the Air Force Museum, less than 20% of the targets fell within 1000 ft of the target.

It would be nice if these modern productions reflected the actual history instead of the pop culture that isn't correct.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

The part that bothered me was the "lesson" on the Norden followed by the very accurate bombing that never really happened.  It took something that was BS back in the war and just continues the wrong narrative.  Especially after they spent sow much time on how inaccurate British nighttime bombing was- as if the B17's always hit their targets.    According to the Air Force Museum, less than 20% of the targets fell within 1000 ft of the target.

It would be nice if these modern productions reflected the actual history instead of the pop culture that isn't correct.

That's fair. I think the show wants to show the Americans as courageous, virtuous boys who were willing to brave the flak and the fighters to reduce civilian casualties. As I said before, it's a flag-waver. 

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

So it's just like every other WWII movie.  Which is kind of sad, since Playtone spent so much time making previous WWII series as accurate as they could.  Including showing some darkness in American soldiers.   Although, there was quite a bit of fabricated stories even in BoB- things that were not even in Ambrose's books.  

And I know our resident historian is really bothered by this kind of movie that pushes the historical narriative.  

Oh, well.

Well, hopefully it gets better and more realistic. I've only seen the first two episodes, though I'll probably watch #3 at lunchtime.

I picked up on the Norden bomb sight thing also.  As noted, that is what they thought at the time, so not terribly inappropriate considering it's narrated as if in real time.

I am a bit suspicious (based on the trailers) the story will start to wander a bit, which I think is unnecessary and may tend to dilute the story.  There is PLENTY of story (and drama etc) just in the bombing missions.  We shall see.

Another small note of interest:  Those yellow tanks you see scattered around the plane are oxygen tanks.  A lot of course is needed because of the amount of time they spend at altitude.  You even see a scene of someone carrying a portable one around, which is required if you want to move around the plane.  Obviously a bad thing if they get punctured and there is any fire around (shown in first episode).

On a similar vein, one thing that could have been highlighted more is the lack of oxygen and extreme cold at altitude.  I know they note the cold, but a huge miss (especially considering the amount CGI they are using) is the complete lack of visible breath when they take their masks off (which is going to be FAR less than shown since there is very little oxygen at 25,000 feet).  I think it would make the extreme cold a lot more obvious.

Also, they seem to very much under depict the noise in those planes.  They are turbocharged, so not open headers like a P51 or Lancaster, but definitely high in background noise.  Clearly a production choice, since it otherwise would be a cocophony of noise and a lot of "what?" since even the microphones where not terribly good.

Another note is that the navigator that is a bit of a center piece of the first two episodes is Harry Crosby, who wrote the book below (bit of a spoiler there).  It seems like the first two episodes are more based on his book than Masters of the Air.   

"Precision" bombing effectiveness analysis (in this case for oil targets):

In reply to aircooled :

They have addressed the cold pretty well, I thought.  First was the rear gunner getting frost bite from touching the gun with his bare hands when it was jammed, and second they had the ball turret gunner get a huge patch of frost bite when he got one of his windows shot out, and it also took out his heater.  Then they let the doctor treating one of then lecture the viewers of the dangers at altitude...  

But after that, there was a scene of them dressing up for a mission.  They had them put on so much gear.

That kind of detail is what makes it tough to show super accurate bombing, which wasn't a correct detail.  While it was interesting to show the despair of a scrubbed bombing run when planes got shot out of the air, there's a chance to show the same despair due to the lack of accuracy.  It remains to be seen, but I have seen some researchers point out that the crew knew that the Norden wasn't that good at some point during the war. (let alone it not being a secret, since the Germans got one pretty early in the war)

I'm still going to enjoy the story and watching, but if you are going to go through the effort of such detail, cover everything in the same historical detail.  These guys are the ones who are driving most people's opinions of WWII history, after all.

A quick update after episodes 3 and 4.   Episode 3 details a rather infamous raid the essentially resulted in the US not doing long range un-Ford Econoboxed bomber raids any more.  It also showed what was called a Shuttle mission, where they landed somewhere other than their base.  As might be obvious, the logistics issues of such missions was pretty high.  They were later used for very long range missions into eastern Germany where they landed in Russia.

It should be noted, that as of Ep4, there is been zero depiction of Ford Econobox fighters.  Although fighter were unable to Ford Econobox bomber to the deeper targets at this time, there were definitely used!  The Germans of course would just wait until they turn back (a good point of drama that could be depicted).

Ep 3 could have been better if it was a fair amount longer and represented that mission a bit better (which was VERY long).  It unfortunately had some more "iffy" CG dynamics in it, including a B-17 spinning (like you would spin a model on a table) while moving at almost full speed forward, which is absurd with the tail intact (which it was), and wildly unlikely even without a tail.

Also of note, and not really shown (not that it has to be) is that in regards to casualties (dead or wounded) of crewmen in planes that returned to base, around 85%(!) of those casualties were the result of flak.  And of those that are the result of fighter fire, most of those were from fragmentation of the plane, not the bullets.  Obviously this does not include planes shown down, so there is clearly a survivor bias here, but it does point out the real crew danger that flak represented.

There was also a depiction of a German fighters using a rocket to attack the bombers.  While this was certainly done, the depiction showed a fighter attacking from the forward quarter (say 2 o'clock) which is certainly the most difficult angle to attack.  This of course is absurd in it's depiction.  The weapon I suspect they were representing was likely the Werfer-Granate 21 which was definitely used, but was rather inaccurate and was launched from 1 km behind the bombers (out of defensive fire range) in a hope that a salvo (from multiple planes) would explode within the bomber box (using the tight groupings against them).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werfer-Granate_21

Here is an image of one on an FW-190 (the twin engined Me-110 might have been a more common user):

Ep 4 is more of a base based episode and seem to be a setup for 5 and certainly has it's own drama of the situation, fairly well done in most cases.

Again, still good, but I just wished it was directed a bit better, and the CG was better (at least more realistic).

There is some indication (in the trailer), that they will depict a rather famous fighter squadron.  I am curious how they will do that since they fought in the 15th Air Force (Mediterranean theater / Italy), while the 100th was in the 8th Air Force (Europe / England).