3 ms·

> I kinda like the '[discipline X professional] reacts to [relevant movie clips]'-type videos (like 'Navy pilot reacts to new Top Gun movie'). Those are exactl

> I kinda like the '[discipline X professional] reacts to [relevant movie clips]'-type videos (like 'Navy pilot reacts to new Top Gun movie'). Those are exactly the ones I'm talking about > You find them so terrible? Yes. All noise, no signal! If you want to watch videos about Navy pilots doing their jobs, go right ahead. Why watch Navy pilots "reacting" to a Hollywood movie? The average Navy pilot must know as about as much about filmmaking and acting as Tom Cruise knows about actually flying a fast jet (as opposed to being filmed sitting in the back seat and not being allowed to touch anything[0]) ? [0] https://fortune.com/2022/05/26/top-gun-maverick-studio-paid-navy-11000-hour-fighter-jet-rides-tom-cruise-not-allowed-to-touch-controls/ https://fortune.com/2022/05/26/top-gun-maverick-studio-paid-...

t_mann 4y ago
Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets. [0] I'm not looking for advice on how to make a good movie (or how to fly a plane, for that matter), but on some perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are. I think overall that sort of scrutiny does some good in terms of making movies less unrealistic (compare 80's action movies like Rambo to modern productions), producers consulting not only ex-soldiers but also physicists, doctors,... [0] https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/tom-cruise-can-fly-fighter-jets-when-pilot-licence-how-much-top-gun-flying-real-1652812 https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/tom-cruise-can-fly-fighter-...
- logifail 4y ago
  > Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets Some jet ... but not the jets in the movie! So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? Apart from - of course - being able to make clickbaity videos showing their "reactions". > perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are Erm, why? Movies are movies. There's loads of excellent stuff to read/watch about actual fast jet flying. Far more interesting and, well, real.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    > So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? They don't comment on his flying but on other aspects, like the training scenes, mission tactics, and also on the flying (by professionals) that is depicted. > Erm, why? Movies are movies. You might feel that way, but even then you'll have to admit that a lot of people don't make that distinction to that extent (especially kids) - so they'll end up imagining they have an idea what it would be like to be in certain situations. > Far more interesting and, well, real. How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge?
    - logifail 4y ago
      > How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge? If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? Why bring Hollywood into it? Watching a clickbaity-titled video of a professional "reacting" to a movie just seems ridiculous. It's all done for the clicks.
      - t_mann 4y ago
        > If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? I actually do that too, why the false dichotomy? > Why bring Hollywood into it? Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account. Watching a documentary and then assuming that that gives me the required knowledge to make a realistic assessment sounds completely delusional. And why do you care so much that the title is designed to induce clicks? Every outlet from solo influencers to NYT/WSJ-style media giants creates their online content with this mindest nowadays. It's only clickbait if the content doesn't live up to what's promised in the title.
        logifail 4y ago
- robonerd 4y ago
  I've seen a few videos recommended to me that are psychologist/therapist reacts. I'm pretty sure psychology and therapy without ever meeting and talking to the subject is generally considered unethical quackery.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - t_mann 4y ago
    Psychology/therapy may be a bit of an outlier in that sense, we wouldn't expect a nuclear engineer to have physically inspected a failed reactor before talking about accidents. And even they may have relevant things to say, psychology/therapy isn't only about individual diagnosis.

t_mann 4y ago

Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets. [0] I'm not looking for advice on how to make a good movie (or how to fly a plane, for that matter), but on some perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are. I think overall that sort of scrutiny does some good in terms of making movies less unrealistic (compare 80's action movies like Rambo to modern productions), producers consulting not only ex-soldiers but also physicists, doctors,... [0] https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/tom-cruise-can-fly-fighter-jets-when-pilot-licence-how-much-top-gun-flying-real-1652812 https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/tom-cruise-can-fly-fighter-...

logifail 4y ago
> Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets Some jet ... but not the jets in the movie! So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? Apart from - of course - being able to make clickbaity videos showing their "reactions". > perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are Erm, why? Movies are movies. There's loads of excellent stuff to read/watch about actual fast jet flying. Far more interesting and, well, real.
- t_mann 4y ago
  > So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? They don't comment on his flying but on other aspects, like the training scenes, mission tactics, and also on the flying (by professionals) that is depicted. > Erm, why? Movies are movies. You might feel that way, but even then you'll have to admit that a lot of people don't make that distinction to that extent (especially kids) - so they'll end up imagining they have an idea what it would be like to be in certain situations. > Far more interesting and, well, real. How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge?
  - logifail 4y ago
    > How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge? If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? Why bring Hollywood into it? Watching a clickbaity-titled video of a professional "reacting" to a movie just seems ridiculous. It's all done for the clicks.
    - t_mann 4y ago
      > If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? I actually do that too, why the false dichotomy? > Why bring Hollywood into it? Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account. Watching a documentary and then assuming that that gives me the required knowledge to make a realistic assessment sounds completely delusional. And why do you care so much that the title is designed to induce clicks? Every outlet from solo influencers to NYT/WSJ-style media giants creates their online content with this mindest nowadays. It's only clickbait if the content doesn't live up to what's promised in the title.
      - logifail 4y ago
robonerd 4y ago
I've seen a few videos recommended to me that are psychologist/therapist reacts. I'm pretty sure psychology and therapy without ever meeting and talking to the subject is generally considered unethical quackery.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- t_mann 4y ago
  Psychology/therapy may be a bit of an outlier in that sense, we wouldn't expect a nuclear engineer to have physically inspected a failed reactor before talking about accidents. And even they may have relevant things to say, psychology/therapy isn't only about individual diagnosis.