Why are there so few good movies about aviation compared to ground

>>29760971
Because aircraft are really expensive to fly. And for any movie to be a movie about aviation rather than a movie that has planes in it, you'd need a lot of flight time, and/or a shitload of CGI. As a result, you'd have to be attached to a pretty big name. And big names are generally more interested in what's going to sell well, rather than producing something that would be widely considered a "good" movie.

>>29761908
There's also the unfortunate fact that most moviegoers these days don't give half a shit about pilots and aviation in general, compared to le sneaky secret squirrel operators or yet another WW2 movie.

>>29761936
Eh, fuck the pilots. I just want to see a movie that's 70% intense fighter combat, 20% plot/exposition and 10% tits.

I want an Ace Combat movie is what I'm basically saying.

>>29762052
enjoy your oh so gritty family drama about predator drone operators for the next decade.

>>29762052
15% story and 15% tits and we have a deal.
in the same vein, what happened to all the romance about bomber/missile crews?
in the 80s, they were fucking gods.
granted, it was the height of the cold war, but the cold war never really ended.
we just went into halftime and changed the teams.

>>29762115
>we just went into halftime and changed the teams.
Not even that. We're just playing a cripple squad as an exhibition during half-time.

>>29762052
But Ace Combat has great stories and characters.

Buddy.

>Tfw in the future naval aviation movies will all be about helo or props because jets got replaced by drones

File: fddogfight.jpg (67KB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x544px

>Alert one, this is eagle one, you're cleared to fire, splash the zeroes, I say again, splash the zeroes.


Best naval aviation movie out there.

>>29768205
Man, I wanted to see the alternate history that would have resulted from the Nimitz being stuck in 1941. Instead we got the standard Star Trek style temporal causality loop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw

A single scene from Patlabor was more tense and realistic than the entirety of Top Gun

>>29760971
Biggest obstacle is that the government tightly controls access to their hardware.
Top Gun was a great movie because the film crew was able to film carrier operations and dogfights with current military hardware flown by real military dogfights.
Nowadays there isn't a chance in hell the Navy would let a Hollywood film crw anywhere near theit aircraft, much less commandeer their pilots to film dogfight sequences. Hell, the Navy let them fire a live missile during filming. Try doing that today.

This was the one saving grace of Red Tails. The dog fighting was great. You just have to throw physics out the window. And maybe mute it.

Because filming aircraft is expensive

File: 91fpK0rzKBL._SL1500_.jpg (338KB, 1058x1500px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1058x1500px

battle of Britain is with good old Michael Caine

Memphis Bell was also a good one.

Isn't there supposed to be an upcoming movie about the B-17 missions?
Mighty Eighth or some shit?

>>29768263
Someone did a simulation of the battle. I wish I saved the Web address, but they went through the trouble of inputting all of the aircraft and weapons and let it play out.

>>29768304
Top Gun was also a massive recruiting success for the Navy. They were happy to cooperate with the filmmakers.

For normal people modern air combat is boring. Its not like things happening in seconds.
You sit in your F-16 and fiddle with radar settings.
Then you pick up contact 90 nm from you.
You request ID. AWACS says its hostile.
It is still a lot of time till you are in range to fire AIM-120.
You take position, fire AMRAAM, wait for pitbull and then you turn tail.
Not very exciting.