Masters of the Air “Review” …

[Mark Allen M]

A post below from an anonymous Facebook member who attended a premiere of Masters of the Air …


“Last night was truly incredible. Here’s the recap that I know everyone has desperately been hoping for. (Warning this post will be a bit long.)

Frankly, Masters of the Air blew all of my expectations out of the water. Hanks and Spielberg did outstanding justice to the men of the 100th Bomb Group and stayed largely true to Miller’s description. I found myself gripping the arm rest, blown away by the visuals and truly in aw of the accuracy. Butler and cast truly did a fantastic job of capturing the playfulness of aircrew juxtaposed against the drama of the aerial combat. The visuals (even the CGI) did not seem “kitschy or fake” rather they did an outstanding job of manifesting formations of airplanes that simply aren’t possible today. The use of the full scale replicas and focus on the actors with visuals in the background put you right into the airplane without feeling fake. The acting, character development, set dressing and costuming were on par with Band of Brothers and I would argue even slightly better. I can say that without question it did not detract from the show in the least. The technical advising made the actors feel at home in their Forts. I will acknowledge that there were some historical inaccuracies and licenses taken with regards to individual crews timelines, but it made for very compelling story development.

Overall, I was blown away with the final product and so incredibly pleased, even dispute my own misgiving about the lack of real airplanes used for filming. Masters of the Air lives up the brief in spades.

(I do feel like I should qualify my opinion with a bit of my background so I’m not just some random guy’s opinion. I studied military history with a focus and thesis on the Army Air Corps while at West Point, flew Army helicopters in combat in Afghanistan, commanded a company of soldiers, then transitioned to the Air Force to fly KC-135s over Iraq. I’m also privileged to fly several WW2 era airplanes (C-47s, B-25s, and several trainers). I don’t share this background to say “look at me” but rather to say I know at least something about the AAF, flying in combat, leadership, and flying these types of airplanes, and all of that shapes my opinion greatly.)”

[gemmer]

A post below from an anonymous Facebook member who attended a premiere of Masters of the Air …


“Last night was truly incredible. Here’s the recap that I know everyone has desperately been hoping for. (Warning this post will be a bit long.)

Frankly, Masters of the Air blew all of my expectations out of the water. Hanks and Spielberg did outstanding justice to the men of the 100th Bomb Group and stayed largely true to Miller’s description. I found myself gripping the arm rest, blown away by the visuals and truly in aw of the accuracy. Butler and cast truly did a fantastic job of capturing the playfulness of aircrew juxtaposed against the drama of the aerial combat. The visuals (even the CGI) did not seem “kitschy or fake” rather they did an outstanding job of manifesting formations of airplanes that simply aren’t possible today. The use of the full scale replicas and focus on the actors with visuals in the background put you right into the airplane without feeling fake. The acting, character development, set dressing and costuming were on par with Band of Brothers and I would argue even slightly better. I can say that without question it did not detract from the show in the least. The technical advising made the actors feel at home in their Forts. I will acknowledge that there were some historical inaccuracies and licenses taken with regards to individual crews timelines, but it made for very compelling story development.

Overall, I was blown away with the final product and so incredibly pleased, even dispute my own misgiving about the lack of real airplanes used for filming. Masters of the Air lives up the brief in spades.

(I do feel like I should qualify my opinion with a bit of my background so I’m not just some random guy’s opinion. I studied military history with a focus and thesis on the Army Air Corps while at West Point, flew Army helicopters in combat in Afghanistan, commanded a company of soldiers, then transitioned to the Air Force to fly KC-135s over Iraq. I’m also privileged to fly several WW2 era airplanes (C-47s, B-25s, and several trainers). I don’t share this background to say “look at me” but rather to say I know at least something about the AAF, flying in combat, leadership, and flying these types of airplanes, and all of that shapes my opinion greatly.)”

One thing I don't understand is if the story is about the 100th BG, 8th AF, how does the 332nd FG, 15th AF figure into it?

[Mark Allen M]

From what I’ve been reading it’s a side story that connects once they cross paths in a German prison camp.

[hurricane_yank]

This would imply that most of the acting/set dressing is completely opposite of what is shown in the trailer.

[Mark Allen M]

This would imply that most of the acting/set dressing is completely opposite of what is shown in the trailer.

Agreed, yet I’m still holding out judgement until this series actually starts it’s run. I’d love to be surprised by something better than what I’ve seen so far. It sure cost enough and took long enough to get to this point. See what happens as they say.

[Baldeagle]

A friend of mine, former jet fighter pilot, saw an advance copy, and said pretty much the opposite of the above review. CGI was video game style, story line weak, a disappointment.
I will still watch it, but expectations are low.


-

[gemmer]

A friend of mine, former jet fighter pilot, saw an advance copy, and said pretty much the opposite of the above review. CGI was video game style, story line weak, a disappointment.
I will still watch it, but expectations are low.


-

From what I've seen in trailers besides the "Red Tails"question, the dialog seems right out of "Air Force".

[hurricane_yank]

This would imply that most of the acting/set dressing is completely opposite of what is shown in the trailer.

Agreed, yet I’m still holding out judgement until this series actually starts it’s run. I’d love to be surprised by something better than what I’ve seen so far. It sure cost enough and took long enough to get to this point. See what happens as they say.

I agree...I just have very very low expectations.

[Brenden S]

To be honest, go into the new series with no expectations. You can nit pick at it all you want every day, but watch it for what it is. A story. Myself I hate CGI with a passion, but lets see how it turns out.

[Mark Allen M]

Saw a new bit of footage that may just ease some concerns for those with less than optimistic expectations. It’s not on YouTube (yet) so I can’t post it here. I’ll see if I can link it.

It looked good.

[wendovertom]

Not having seen any of it other than trailers, and realizing I am throwing gas on a campfire, ALL of us are going to have to come to grips with CGI and AI for this kind of series or film.
This series would not have been made if the level of expectation was, "get 6 or 7 operational B-17s together, paint them appropriately, and then fly them to England". And, working in the digital world myself, it also costs a lot of $$ to have CGI artists put so much effort into animation that even those of us who can pick a Cheyenne out from a stinger style turret are happy. Even Hanks and Spielberg have to answer to a investor somewhere.
I am waiting until the full series is out then doing the free Apple TV trial so I can binge the whole series. I just can't justify another subscription.
The alternate is . . . . well, nothing really - read the book.

Tom P.

[JohnB]

I Don't think anyone is really critical of the use of CGI. After all, there aren't enough airworthy B-17 to mount a mission.

I think their concerns are based on the released trailers, they don't look as realistic as the dragons in Game of Thrones.

[Saville]

Not having seen any of it other than trailers, and realizing I am throwing gas on a campfire, ALL of us are going to have to come to grips with CGI and AI for this kind of series or film.
This series would not have been made if the level of expectation was, "get 6 or 7 operational B-17s together, paint them appropriately, and then fly them to England". And, working in the digital world myself, it also costs a lot of $$ to have CGI artists put so much effort into animation that even those of us who can pick a Cheyenne out from a stinger style turret are happy. Even Hanks and Spielberg have to answer to a investor somewhere.
I am waiting until the full series is out then doing the free Apple TV trial so I can binge the whole series. I just can't justify another subscription.
The alternate is . . . . well, nothing really - read the book.

Tom P.

I don't mind CGI.

In fact I recall some trailer footage of Pearl harbor that was actually very good.

I mind the scenes they create with CGI. Wholly impractical super crowded formations that never existed and maneuvers that defy physics.

[Zac Yates]

I don't mind CGI.

In fact I recall some trailer footage of Pearl harbor that was actually very good.

I mind the scenes they create with CGI. Wholly impractical super crowded formations that never existed and maneuvers that defy physics.

That's my feeling too. CGI in itself is not a bad thing: it's a tool that can be misused.

[Saville]

I don't mind CGI.

In fact I recall some trailer footage of Pearl harbor that was actually very good.

I mind the scenes they create with CGI. Wholly impractical super crowded formations that never existed and maneuvers that defy physics.

For example if you go the the PH trailer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYcxjywx0o

Move to the 1:10 mark. And watch it as the Zero flies across the screen (you are looking down on it). It's only on for about a second.
That is an amazingly good rendition. Freeze it and look at the details near the leading edge of the wings. You see rivet dimples. The
aluminum is not perfectly smooth. You can't ask for any better than that. Looks real to me.

Now go to the 1:17 mark. Here the CGI is beginning to be used ineffectively with the number of planes flying past the kids how close they are together
It isn't awful, But a few too many planes a little too close.

1:31-1:35 - a few too many planes though I've seen worse.

Now go to the first dogfight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jXy9L4lgMM

Yes some of the maneuvers were cheesy. But I think most of this was CGI and if you watch it only from the
standpoint of the rendition and some of the flying I thought it was pretty good an example is here at the

Go to the 3:47 mark. A P-40 is flying toward you. Notice how it's not on rails but bobs up and down a little
and skids - as you would expect. Perfectly fine.

Yeah some of the explosions weren't great.

But as I say, it's the use of CGI - not CGI capabilities themselves - that's the problem.

Look at This clip from Tuskeegee Airmen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=267Ngt1mPE4

Freeze it at the 46 second mark - way too close.