Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
They were doing that all the way back in the 40's and 50's. It was more common back then than it is now because hollywood movies tended to be more pro-military back then. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. military generally won't support films it sees as anti-military.
If the admiral is a jerk and the pilots get treated like dirt it's basically accurate to life. Pilots are expensive to train and always limited in number but for some reason the armed forces continue treating them like they're disposable. It fuels their exodus to civilian jobs which generally already pay better for less injury risk. The Navy may have known this is an issue and wants to get it some publicity in a deniable manner (ie, nobody wants to put his own job on the line). The original "Top Gun" film was used in part to try to raise public awareness (and hence, get people yelling at Congress) of the faults with the F-14. The scene where the RIO dies is basically true-to-life; the plane suffers a compressor stall and engine flame-out, the pilot instinctively but incorrectly tries to fight it with the stick instead of with opposite pedal, the plane rapidly enters an unrecoverable flat spin and they're left with no option but punch out. A number of real F-14 crews were injured or killed in similar fashion, and for a number of years Congress didn't want to fund any remedies like engine replacement.
Danth
|
Oh interesting
The admiral is going over the mission objectives with Maverick (Tom Cruise) and finishes and Maverick adds “and get out alive, right?” Because the admiral didn’t include that
He just kind of sits back and says “the pilots know the risks”. It felt like a bit of a callous exaggeration still