Sully : Why would anyone watch this movie?

I don't get it. We know what happened. And it happened at the end of the flight, and it must have lasted a number of minutes. An entire movie about it? I haven't even seen it and I can predict that they must fill it up with fluff about the passenger's lives, Sully's wife and kids and his life, everything hunky-dory until the fateful flight, and then about 10 minutes of terror, and thensuccess. Yawn.

Not saying Hanks is a bad actorhe's great.
Not saying Sully isn't a herohe is.

I just don't get a whole MOVIE about a successful water landing.

I watched it just last night.
Yes we know what happened at the crash.
But we never knew what Sully and his co-pilot went through during the scrutiny and investigation and doubt by the Feds.
They touched a little on Sully's past. His first flight as a teenager in an old biplane and how he handled an emergency while flying an F4 in the Air Force.
Plus they touch on the professionalism and dedication Sully exhibited after the plane was in the water.
Hero is thrown around a lot these days.
But Captain Sullenberger is a true hero.

ok thanks. I don't think I'll watch just to see the Feds try and pin the crash on a pilotugh.

Yes Sully is a hero.

Actually it was a short movie and they really didn't go into the lives of the passengers/crew and not too deeply into Sully's life. It's interesting to see the aftermath and investigation but that too was a little "enhanced" for drama value as I read in the factual errors linked to this page on imdb:

The NTSB was portrayed horribly in this movie. They investigate purely on facts, not going on witch hunts like this movie implies. In the movie they tried to "second guess" and "blame the pilot." This never happens in real life.

Which is why I put off seeing this movie for so long. I finally saw it just a few weeks ago on break and it was highly unrealistic. Also, if you've sever seen any hearing or read a report on any flight they go into exhaustive effort on any issue that affects a flight. So in this case they would have gone into the same exhaustive effort interviewing the folks who designed the engines as well, which actually as it was a known issue with this model of aircraft the NYSB did.

This film reminded me why I avoid Tom Hanks films as they tend to be sugary and manipulative, just as Sully was.

And what was this about losing the house? He was a seasoned airline pilot, not working for a piss poor paying regional airline. He knew what his salary was generally bringing in. That part didn't seem realistic and just dropped in for emotional baggage

---

And what was this about losing the house? He was a seasoned airline pilot, not working for a piss poor paying regional airline. He knew what his salary was generally bringing in. That part didn't seem realistic and just dropped in for emotional baggage

---

You never looked up Sullenberger did you and what happened with retiring. Perhaps you should have before speaking.

---

Sullenberger testified before the U.S. House of Representatives's Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure on February 24, 2009, that his salary had been cut by 40 percent, and that his pension, like most airline pensions, was terminated and replaced by a "PBGC" guarantee worth only pennies on the dollar.[62] Sullenberger cautioned that airlines were under "pressure to hire people with less experience. Their salaries are so low that people with greater experience will not take those jobs. We have some carriers that have hired some pilots with only a few hundred hours of experience. Theres simply no substitute for experience in terms of aviation safety."[63] Sullenberger also mentioned his pay cut in an October 13, 2009 appearance on The Daily Show.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))

It was apparently based on Sully's book and IMO kind of "sullied" his reputation. He clearly way exaggerated the facts to make it look like, as you say, a witch hunt. It was probably a much more cordial investigation and hearings. Perhaps he took the questioning a little too personal. Maybe a bit of a god complex.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

And we still don't know what Sully and Skiles went through, because many reliable sources testify that the NTSB's behavior in the movie and particularly the hearing were wildly unrealistic. Plus, you know, if there had been any such public hearing, it might have made the newsand didn't.

Still a watchable movie: ignore that *beep* Hollywood aspect and the rest of it is still entertaining, despite weak CGI (at least on our TVdifferent thread, no need to rehash it here).

One of the best movies of 2016.

We all watched Apollo 13 and knew the story too. Great movie. With both movies we get to see the inside story. Both were great.

I just don't get the point of your post. If you're not interested in a movie, forget about it and move on. Instead you make a post with a bunch of wrong assumptions.

You didn't see it. You have an issue with it (having not seen it and your guesses are far off if not completely wrong). You have a problem with seeing something about something you know the end to the story.

These are all issues with you. Not the movie.

As to why we see itto see the story given a bit more realism than reading a news line or hearing Katie Couric talk about it? To find out more details than you knew before seeing it? To see what dramatic elements have been added to flesh out a movie from a "based on" series of events?

The more important question would be: Why would anyone waste time writing a non-review complaint about a movie they didn't see, didn't want to see, and most likely will never see?

That's the issue though is your saying it makes it more 'real'. When the exact opposite is true.

"Why would anyone watch this movie?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You just asked the equivalent of the question..

"Why is the sky blue?"

I had no idea this happened. Partially as I'm not american and I dont watch a whole lot of news.

So I found it incredibly profound. Great story/Film.

---

I haven't even seen it and I can predict that they must fill it up with fluff about the passenger's lives, Sully's wife and kids and his life, everything hunky-dory until the fateful flight, and then about 10 minutes of terror, and thensuccess.

---

SPOILERS:

1. Nothing about the passenger's personal lives.

2. Almost nothing about his wife and kids

3. Almost nothing about Sully's past life

4. Everything hunky-dory until the fateful flight? Sure.

5. 10 minutes of terror? The film was not chronological so we keep returning tot he flight and the terror.

Record: 1-4

I guess you didn't see the wrong movie . . .

Although I knew just about everything that happened and how it happened I was never familiar with the investigation process. Also, even those we heard the interviews and stories on the news from the passengers and crew, I thought it was cool to get a bird's eye view of all that happened I liked the part when Sully called his wife to tell her that he's okay and to turn on the news. I was laughing and crying at the same time

Yeah, there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff. Plus, i'm a New Yorker and even I didn't know how close the city I live in came to have another 9/11 like incident thankfully averted by a great pilot.

Trying to create a channel based on interpreting, reviewing, and even giving you something to laugh about film. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance.

Review of the film here-

---

i'm a New Yorker and even I didn't know how close the city I live in came to have another 9/11 like incident thankfully averted by a great pilot.

---

The shots of the men watching in silence as the jet was coming down really brought that home.

Why would anyone watch Titanic?
(one of the biggest movies of all time)

Why would anyone watch movies based on true stories when you can look them up on WIkipedia??

Moron.