Well, well, well. Isn’t that a lucky coincidence… :dubious:
Yeah … IIRC, that was on a levee outside of New Orleans. Remarkable piece of flying, that was!
I love Mayday!, though I should be scared shitless of flying now just from watching it!
(Next week, I’m flying from Moscow to Toronto via Istanbul. NOT looking forward to it, NOT AT ALL! 
)
I saw the movie last night. Actually, I was surprised it is still in the theaters. I enjoyed the movie, and thought that it told a good story. I also really liked the CG of the ditching scenes, of what those who saw the plane going down saw, and of Sully’s damaged USAF F-4 landing. Very good use of the CG, there. It was a good yarn.
Titanic was well done, and the suspense was decent.
The entire movie was soap opera about the aftermath + Sully’s PTSD nightmares and fears.
The movie did try to make the NTSB investigators out to be villains. Like they were happy when the computer sims and even the pilot sims showed the plane made it back to LGA LaGuardia or even to TEB Teterboro, and not too happy that the ditching was successful and all souls saved.
More on this in a bit.
Thanks for the documentary. It’s about 45 minutes long so I saved it for later. About Tom Hanks, I agree he is an excellent actor and I do like most if not all of his works. But based on looks alone I think the actor who looks most like Sully is William H. Macy. I wonder why he wasn’t used? Here is Sully, and here is Macy - a decently striking resemblance, what do you think? They could almost be brothers IRL. And then here is Hanks as Sully - not as close a resemblance, IMHO.
Nitpick: Sully’s actual words were, “We’re gonna be in the Hudson.” However, I’m not sure about this but I don’t think the movie used that line either.
Like others, I also wonder why. Care to enlighten us, Snowboarder Bo?
Finally, US Air 1549 reminds of Pan Am flight 6 in October 1956. Flying from HNL Honolulu to SFO San Francisco it had to ditch in the Pacific Ocean, and all lived. So Sully, you aren’t the only one. And, there have been several other successful commercial ditchings, too.
There are no boats, bridges or buildings in the Pacific.
Still, credit for actually ditching the plane with no losses.
So was Apollo 13. Which was my point, Mr. Hanks. 
Missed that. And that’s one of my favorite movies!
There are no waves on the Hudson, too.
I want to know, how did Tom Hanks go from being the Bachelor Party/Bosom Buddies guy into the Jimmy Stewart of our era? The go-to guy for serious biopic-like movies?
Because I wish I’d had his movie career.
I don’t know how he did it but he has managed his career expertly. He built his stature by getting into the right roles and the right films. Looking at Wiki’s List of Tom Hanks performances, namely this progression (and among my favorite films):
(and he was born in 1956)
Splash (1984)
Big (1988)
A League of Their Own (1992)
Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
Philadelphia (1993)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Apollo 13 (1995)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Green Mile (1999)
Cast Away (2000)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
Sully (2014)
That’s a long list of winners.
Ron Howard (Splash & Apollo 13), Garry Marshall (Nothing in Common), Penny Marshall (Big & A League of Their Own), and Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle & You’ve Got Mail)?
Rosebud’s the sled.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Finally saw the movie today and absolutely hated it. Full disclosure - I fly airplanes for a living, and I’ve read Sullenberger’s book, which I enjoyed.
And possibly some spoilers ahead…
I had no problem with Hanks’ portrayal, although I thought a lot of the other acting was very wooden uninspired. It was mostly the scenes with the NTSB that didn’t ring true, which has been discussed quite a lot since the film came out. I found that stuff rather cartoonish, and possibly emblematic of Clint Eastwood’s opinions about government.
Also, the cockpit scene of the ditching had me laughing hysterically. I’ve heard the actual ATC tapes, and there is quite a bit of stress in Sullenberger’s voice. They were under serious time pressure, and his transmissions were short and clipped. But in the movie there was a tone of, “Oh look, we seem to have lost our engines. How interesting…”
The tone Hanks used in Apollo 13 as Jim Lovell reporting the spacecraft explosion would have been more appropriate. Which is ironic, because the real Lovell’s transmission sounded much more disappointed than alarmed. When the O2 tank blew certain safety devices automatically activated, and Lovell knew this would preclude any lunar landing attempt. Listen to the tape and it’s unmistakable.
But I digress.
Why can’t Hollywood just tell a basic true story without adding lots of dramatic bullshit? Landing an airliner in the Hudson River isn’t interesting enough without inventing evil and simplistic NTSB enemies? And then there’s the fact that it’s called “Sully”. One of the things I admire about Sullenberger is how he always credited his crew. Everyone else tried to make it about him, but he shared the credit from the beginning, and that was very classy. Why did the film have to center on him?
But I have to wonder how much control they had of what appeared on screen - I’m guessing not a lot. According to the Wikipedia article, Sullenberger’s opinion of the NTSB investigation is quite a bit different than what’s in the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if he and others involved weren’t completely happy with it.
For those wondering why I declined to see this film, I apologize for taking so long to post. Llama Logophile’s post encapsulates a lot of my reasons, but it basically boils down to my opinion that this movie was little more than an exploitation film.
Captain Sullenberger plays parts of the ATC tapes during his speaking engagements. His tone is, as Llama noted, clipped. He is calm, like a professional, but he is clearly under stress and trying to do a lot of things in a very short time.
He also, as Llama notes, talks a great deal about the professionalism of the entire crew, and gives them all a tremendous amount of credit for their efforts and how they contributed to the outcome.
And third, he had nothing but good things to say about the NTSB investigation and report.
There was never, in either of the talks I saw, any hint of drama outside of the roughly six minutes that comprised the flight. He did speak of having difficulty sleeping for several weeks and general stress & anxiety, but he made it clear that that faded on it’s own (and it doesn’t seem unusual at all given the circumstances).
So to me, there was no reason to make this movie. It was a professional with decades of experience, backed by a group of other experienced professionals, responding to a once-in-a-lifetime event exactly as they were trained to respond. They deserve accolades, to be sure, but there was no material that I knew of (or know of) that would be fodder for a 90 minute feature film. Which to me says: they made shit up. They gussied things up so there would be drama, there would be conflict. They took a true story and turned it into a movie that was “based on a true story.”
I hope that Captain Sullenberger and others involved made some scratch off the movie, but I don’t wanna give Clint Eastwood or anyone else involved in exploiting the story any money. For all I know, the film might have been financed by American Airlines and their insurance company to try and make money off this accident. I’m just not interested in helping people make money for doing that.