Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Sully

Reviews, favourites and suggestions
Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2859
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1385 times
Been thanked: 3773 times

Sully

#17002

Postby Clitheroekid » December 20th, 2016, 7:19 pm

I watched "Sully" last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought Tom Hanks played an excellent part.

However, although I realise it's not a documentary I suspect there was a fair bit of artistic licence employed. This is a perennial problem with a film that's made about an actual event, and it's often hard to know where fact ends and fiction begins.

For example, insofar as I'd considered it at all I'd always just viewed the event as an act of heroism and professional competence on the part of the pilot, but the film suggests that there were some accusations that he could, in fact, have landed the aircraft safely. These accusations were based on computer simulations, and it's a great scene in the film when they are shot down in flames (so to speak).

But was this simply dramatic invention or did it really happen? Likewise, although Sully said both engines had failed the authorities had said this was not the case, again based on computer data. In the film he was vindicated during the public inquiry when it was dramatically revealed that the engine had, in fact, failed. But surely they wouldn't have held the enquiry until all such evidence had been painstakingly gathered and analysed?

I'm not complaining, as it made for great drama, and the overall conclusion was what I'd believed to be the case anyway. But it does raise interesting questions about the extent to which films based on true stories can legitimately manipulate the facts just to produce good drama.

I can also imagine that, particularly with such a recent event as this (2009) some individuals might well be pretty annoyed at having their role altered out of all recognition just to improve the story, and I wonder to what extent their views are taken into consideration.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Sully

#17012

Postby Lootman » December 20th, 2016, 7:52 pm

There have been a couple of UK crashes where both engines failed. In one case the pilot accidentally shut down the one remaining good engine by mistake - it was a 737 at East Midlands airport in 1989.

You may recall the BA 777 that landed short at Heathrow in 2008, and there were some theories that the same had happened there, because it is highly unusual for both engines to fail at the same time, as you say. The investigation exonerated the pilots and blamed fuel starvation due to ice crystals having formed.

As for the US Air A320, the plane was over the Bronx and heading north when the engines failed. There were only two possible airports that he might have been able to use. One was La Guardia, where he took off from, but that would have involved various turns over populated areas. The other was Teterboro in New Jersey, which would have been easier to reach. Both have 7,000 feet runways but still tricky to land with a plane full of fuel even if you have power.

Various simulations were run after the fact, as you say, involving diverting to both airports. Some landed safely and some crashed. Given the real-world stresses that Sully would have had to handle, and the extremely dense population centres he was over, I think everyone believes that he did the right thing. It helped that the plane was certified to fly over water even though it wasn't required for that flight.

I haven't seen the film yet but it's interesting that it covered the theories that challenge his judgement and decisions. But I think he really was a hero.

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3644 times

Re: Sully

#17015

Postby swill453 » December 20th, 2016, 8:05 pm

The review in the Guardian concluded:

"Sully has smeared this (the National Transportation Safety Board's) reputation for the sake of a hero who needed no defending. It will create a headwind in the minds of the public and policymakers that the NTSB will be struggling against for years to come."

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/12/sully-clint-eastwood-hudson-river-plane-crash-ntsb

Whether the events happened exactly as shown (e.g. the engine recovery and testing relayed live to the enquiry) or were compressed, is normal cinematic licence.

But the overall impression of an attempted hatchet job was wrong, IMO.

Scott.


Return to “Music, Theatre, TV and Film”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests