Will the upcoming Director's Cut of Pearl Harbor fix the Special Effects mistakes? (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Kalon]

In Pearl Harbor (2001) there are lots of Special Effects mistakes that are very visible.
Such as modern Aircraft Carriers with the Angle Deck used instead of the old Straight Deck Aircraft Carriers used during the period.
Jet Catapaults visible on the Aircraft Carriers.
Incorrect ships used for the Japanese Fleet.
Anchor Mooring Chains visible on ships that are supposed to be at sea.
And other Special Effects and or other mistakes that could be easily fixed with Digital Technology. And no I am not talking about trying to make the movie better, but simply fixing mistakes.
Here is a couple of links to the movie mistakes for this and other films.
Link Removed
http://www.nitpickers.com/
On the nitpickers site, click on the Movies Link on the Left Side. Then By Title, then the Letter P and then Pearl Harbor for a list of mistakes.
Again just wondering if anybody knows if the New Director's Cut will fix these Special Effects mistakes?

 

[TonyD]

are they special effects mistakes or just bad editing or historical mistakes?

 

[Kyle McKnight]

Why would you support this? This is the same as Spielberg going back and messing with his movies.

 

[Chad R]

Such as modern Aircraft Carriers with the Angle Deck used instead of the old Straight Deck Aircraft Carriers used during the period.

Jet Catapaults visible on the Aircraft Carriers.

Incorrect ships used for the Japanese Fleet.

Anchor Mooring Chains visible on ships that are supposed to be at sea.

These don't sound like special effects mistakes, probably just left over from the real aircraft carriers and such that they used to shoot the movie.

And the porducers probably look at it as an unwarranted expense (it'll take some money to digitally fix those things) for the very small minority of people who would notice such things. Never having been in the navy I wouldn't know it.

 

[Mark E J]

David Prior has confirmed here that the DC will feature digital alterations of existing footage. So I guess it is a possibility. One think I hope they do fix is the fact that in several scenes you can clearly see that the USS Oklahoma is missing it's back half. It almost seems like that they ran out of FX money so the didn't finish the last few shots of the Okalahoma turning over.

 

[cafink]

Why would you support this? This is the same as Spielberg going back and messing with his movies.

If that's an issue for you, then the upcoming Pearl Harbor DVD is going to be problematic whether it contains these fixes or not — it's going to contain an entirely new cut of the movie. If Dougles is interested in this new cut of Pearl Harbor, then he obviously doesn't have a problem with revising movies.

Personally, I don't like to see filmmakers going back and tinkering with their movies, no matter the circumstances, but since the original cut of Pearl Harbor is already available on DVD (and a wonderful disc it is), I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[Dave Miller]

Maybe the Bruce Willis cameo will get fixed.
Peace,
DM

 

[Greg O' Connel]

I'd be more happy if they fixed the plot rather than the special effects. Maybe they could take care of that Ben Affleck boarding a train to England scene.
Anyway, I haven't heard about the new cut of Pearl Harbor. Is it just the same movie with deleted scenes added in, or are they actually making significant changes to the film?

 

[Jeremy Little]

Well with the budgets of movies climbing ever higher, why didn't they just build the entire Pacific Fleet over? You know, seeings how the new damn ships are sooo historically inaccurate.
Seriously, there were bigger issues with the movie than that.

 

[rutger_s]

Anyway, I haven't heard about the new cut of Pearl Harbor. Is it just the same movie with deleted scenes added in, or are they actually making significant changes to the film?

Its the director's vision of the film. Michael Bay wanted to focus heavily on the attack on Pearl Harbor and counterattack on Tokyo. Touchstone Pictures wanted to focus more on the love story.

The director's cut will put more emphasis on the attacks and less attention on the love story.

And I believe Ben Affleck actually boarded a train to the airport. Then took a plane to England.

 

[Mark E J]

Maybe they could take care of that Ben Affleck boarding a train to England scene.

Actually Rafe boarded a train to Canada, where he was inducted into the Eagle Squadron then took a ship from Canada to England.

 

[Marc Colella]

Actually Rafe boarded a train to Canada, where he was inducted into the Eagle Squadron then took a ship from Canada to England.

Not possible according to IMDB:

"Errors in geography: Rafe sets off to travel from New York to London on a train. Despite receiving the backing of the US, Canadian, British and Irish governments, plans for the infamous Newfoundland-Galway Bay Transatlantic Railway were dropped in 1936 following a disagreement over the correct temperature at which to serve the Chablis in the restaurant car. The trip by train would therefore be impossible. The docks are a few blocks from the railway station, so it would be easier to walk than to travel there by train."

 

[Deane Johnson]

Does anyone know the running time differences between the previous release and the new Director's Cut?

Deane

 

[Bill J]

Are some of the love story scenes being taken out?

 

[TonyD]

Are some of the love story scenes being taken out?

that is what i thought i read. re-editing the love scenes to be less and adding more of the war or action scenes back in. or something to that effect.

 

[Mark E J]

Not possible according to IMDB: "Errors in geography: Rafe sets off to travel from New York to London on a train. Despite receiving the backing of the US, Canadian, British and Irish governments, plans for the infamous Newfoundland-Galway Bay Transatlantic Railway were dropped in 1936 following a disagreement over the correct temperature at which to serve the Chablis in the restaurant car. The trip by train would therefore be impossible. The docks are a few blocks from the railway station, so it would be easier to walk than to travel there by train."

IMDB is wrong. In Randall Wallace's script as well as his novel there is a scene of Rafe getting off the train in Canada and getting on a ship.

 

[Marc Colella]

IMDB is wrong. In Randall Wallace's script as well as his novel there is a scene of Rafe getting off the train in Canada and getting on a ship.

The train ride to Canada may have been in the book and in the script, but IMDB isn't wrong.

The train ride to Canada couldn't have happened under the circumstances, and that's why this is a goof.

 

[Jeffrey Noel]

re-editing the love scenes to be less and adding more of the war or action scenes back in. or something to that effect.

Hell yeah! This movie needs more explosions and guns, less lovin!

 

[Mark E J]

in geography: Rafe sets off to travel from New York to London on a train.

This is getting ridicules. Both arguments that I questioned discribed Rafe traveling from NY to England by train. HE DID NOT GO TO ENGLAND BY TRAIN, HE WENT TO CANADA. This is all I'm saying. If no trains went to Canada in 1941 that's a seperate issue. IMDB is wrong because it says Rafe travels from NY to London not Canada. :rolleyes

 

[GlennH]

Maybe he took the train to London, Ontario.

Hey, I think Archie Bunker once was worried about losing his job for shipping something to London, England instead of London, Ontario.