14 ms·

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

by 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
        > 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. It's a action movie. It's designed to entertain you for a couple of hours. Did it entertain you? Did you enjoy it? What did you think of it? What did you like? What didn't you like? Spoiler: You know the plot was completely made up, right? I honestly can't understand why one would want to seek help on YouTube to know "what to make of" an entertainment experience which is an action movie with a made-up plot. Maybe this is an age thing :( I guess I was watching action movies before the web was born.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Cruise owns an L39 trainer (and the Mustang that was at the end of the movie). It’s a bad ass jet. It’s A LITTLE HARD to own an F18, I have zero doubt he has dozens of hours on them though. Same with the F14 which there are a few privately owned. You picked a bad example. Just move on.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > You picked a bad example He's an actor. He acts for a living. There are Navy pilots. They fly fast jets with live weapons for a living. It really isn't a bad example. Did this discussion slip into some kind of metaverse where we can't tell the difference between an action movie and real Navy pilots?
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.

by t_mann 4y ago

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
      > 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. It's a action movie. It's designed to entertain you for a couple of hours. Did it entertain you? Did you enjoy it? What did you think of it? What did you like? What didn't you like? Spoiler: You know the plot was completely made up, right? I honestly can't understand why one would want to seek help on YouTube to know "what to make of" an entertainment experience which is an action movie with a made-up plot. Maybe this is an age thing :( I guess I was watching action movies before the web was born.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Cruise owns an L39 trainer (and the Mustang that was at the end of the movie). It’s a bad ass jet. It’s A LITTLE HARD to own an F18, I have zero doubt he has dozens of hours on them though. Same with the F14 which there are a few privately owned. You picked a bad example. Just move on.
- logifail 4y ago
  > You picked a bad example He's an actor. He acts for a living. There are Navy pilots. They fly fast jets with live weapons for a living. It really isn't a bad example. Did this discussion slip into some kind of metaverse where we can't tell the difference between an action movie and real Navy pilots?

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.