Into The Storm Movie [was "Is anyone else worried that..."]

[JohnHuntington]

Interesting article about shooting the movie:
http://www.thecredits.org/2014/08/how-into-the-storms-cinematographer-filmed-in-torrential-rain-100-mph-winds

They used this which (while expensive/impractical) would be REALLY cool for storm photography:
http://www.ultimatearm.com/eliminator-spray-deflector.html

 

[Jeff Wright]

That is brilliant! Maybe National Geographic will use that one day.

Building debris in general was pretty darn cool and well done. And call me a sucker, the above the clouds moment was well executed, as dumb as it was. I loved it.
Also, I'm definitely adding a knife to my storm chase kit next season. Essential.

I loved it too--as well as the character's smile--resigning himself to his fate

The number of tornadoes in the one area (scene when the firenado formed) seemed ridiculous. There was one shot of a multiple vortex tornado that looked decent, but then to have that many independent tornados around seemed far-fetched if not impossible. All of these looked like relatively narrow, drill-bit style satellite tornadoes...

I loved those too.

To me, a Lovecraftian supernatural approach should have been used, with some real tornado expert shouting to himself "Tornadoes aren't supposed to do that."

A locomotive engine gets hurled into a safe-room destroying it, while the poor character feels no wind. He looks up and sees more of these things come down.

Are these vortices after all, or tentacles?

The empty weather radio voice blares "Praise his comings and his goings...IA! YOG-SOTHOTH!"

The wall of a wedge tornado destroys his body, but--shades of The Frighteners, we see his spirit standing up. He can no longer feel the wind. Debris passes through his ethereal form without damage.

Then inside the funnel, he sees something out of camera range--and (even as a ghost)...he begins to scream.

 

[Zac Flamig]

Yeah, I caught it. When they're helping the old guy out of the precariously perched, tornado impacted car right? They're cutting the seat belt and then, from the same camera angle, the scene suddenly jumps forward in time. It was a jarring jump cut definitely. At first I thought it was intentional, despite that kind of editing being considered bad form, it is used in some movies. I thought perhaps they were just trying to move the scene along. However, then I didn't see any other cuts like it in the movie, so I almost think it was an editing mistake (or an error in the reel?). That's really, really bad if that's the case. It would be like somebody misspelling the title on the film's poster. "Into Teh Storm"

I think there was another one too when they were being rescued from the flooded pit. I remember there being another one after the car scene... seemed intentional. And awful.

 

[Dave C]

Nice to see the thread got back on topic. A few individuals always turn threads into debate club about tired old topics (celebrity chasers, who is not elite enough to chase, how/why to chase, etc) and I appreciate that you let the thread get back to the movie. I only risk derailing the thread again because I want to point out how nauseating it is that so many threads get the same individuals in them debating the same topics or asserting themselves.

Now, to the film!

I enjoyed this film. I went to it with realistic expectations - that it would not be accurate in any way, that it would be a disaster movie, not a chasing movie, and that its focus was entertainment and little else. I laughed for about a quarter of the film. The four tornadoes with the firenado were hilarious. The depiction of TIV-like vehicle and crew were equally funny, and I can only surmise who the four wheeler cowboy chasers were supposed to be, but the level of ridiculous and humor they gave was great from an entertainment standpoint. I was rolling when they used a tornado watch and later a warning on the weather channel to pick their targets - the warning was 200 miles away. The whole thing made Twister feel like a documentary. It was extremely entertaining though. Nothing in the film tells me it was a good enough film about something new enough, to pull more people into chasing. Twister was a much better film that was at least three times as accurate (just playing) and it brought something virtually unknown to the public eye. With all the documentaries, news coverage, discovery specials and shows, chasing is already extremely well known.

The film was so unrealistic, so cheesy and low on substance that I have no fears that it will add another swell to chaser ranks - even if it does I could care less. Convergences near large cities will always happen, and I will always do my best to avoid those areas. I guess I try to avoid worry or offense at such trivial things anymore. I don't always win - another day you might find me in here griping with you guys - but not today.

 

[StephenHenry]

If anyone is familiar with the Albuquerque area, there's a pretty good New Mexican fast food chain called Twisters (aka Los Pollos Hermanos from Breaking Bad). So anyway, having seen Into the Storm last weekend, I figured it was a good time to eat some red-chile-smothered burritos and watch the classic. Man does it really put Into the Storm to shame in direct comparison. Hadn't seen Twister in a number of years, and there's still all the dumb technical mistakes that we all know (and admit it, love). Twister's Spielberg-esque quiet-dawning-realization moments seem so cheesy and overdramatic now, but I still appreciate them. I had never caught the "It's a space station!" line from Dusty before (on the "back building" tornado). At first I thought he'd meant to say "mothership," before I realized it was a Star Wars reference. But you know, I think I'm actually going to switch to space station from now on

Speaking of Dusty, I still get sad seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman in films. He was one of my all time favorite actors. Gone way too soon.

 

[Shane Adams]

Nice to see the thread got back on topic. A few individuals always turn threads into debate club about tired old topics (celebrity chasers, who is not elite enough to chase, how/why to chase, etc) and I appreciate that you let the thread get back to the movie. I only risk derailing the thread again because I want to point out how nauseating it is that so many threads get the same individuals in them debating the same topics or asserting themselves.

After reading that quote, I went back through to see how "guilty" I was. To me, it's just natural evolution of a conversation. When multiple people weigh in on a particular topic, things will be thrown out there that cause others to react. The off-topicness you speak of, in my opinion, is simply that. I don't see it as "asserting myself" because I have an opinion about something that stemmed from the original topic. And maybe the reason certain subjects keep coming up again and again is because they're interesting to discuss.

Oops, I did it again.

 

[Rob H]

Nice to see the thread got back on topic. A few individuals always turn threads into debate club about tired old topics (celebrity chasers, who is not elite enough to chase, how/why to chase, etc) and I appreciate that you let the thread get back to the movie. I only risk derailing the thread again because I want to point out how nauseating it is that so many threads get the same individuals in them debating the same topics or asserting themselves.

Some people offer opinions because they would like to discuss and have their stance challenged so they can learn - an opinion isn't a concrete structure that's chained to an individual's leg for life. This forum is dreadfully slow, and yet it's the last bastion of extended conversation relating to storm chasing. That's why I post here, and my biggest concern in chasing right now is safety and how other chasers can impact that safety. A thread about the media's effect on potentially bringing irresponsible chasers into the fray seemed like a good place to voice that opinion. I apologize if it wasn't, but I also didn't see anyone saying who should be allowed to chase or how you should chase.

I don't post to provide others with a good reading experience, I post about things that interest me. If you don't like the way a discussion is moving, feel free to post and change it

 

[JamesCaruso]

On the subject of perceived OT posts and tangents, I think Shane said it best: it's the natural evolution of a conversation.

Also, why pretend that every thread is in a vacuum? To Rob's point, if he has a particular concern about chasing and he can reasonably relate that theme within another discussion thread, why not do so?

The other consideration is that sometimes a thought may be a bit of a tangent yet does not necessarily justify creating an entirely separate thread. In that case it may make sense to just post in the thread that triggered the thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StephenHenry]

Guys Guys Guys!! This discussion of how we get OT is making us get OT.

And now I'm making us more OT talking about how OT discussions make us OT!

This recursion is like the climactic tornado-within-a-tornado depicted by both Twister and Into the Storm!!

Phew, back on topic

 

[Marcus Diaz]

Hey not to go off topic, but I think more people should use the chatroom. With it being late summer, I get bored easy. I like chatting with folks about random stuff in there.

Anyways, let's get back on topic...

 

[Adam Lucio]

Main topic: I enjoyed the movie, I pretty much laughed throughout the entire time. While the characters, plot and representation of the meteorological circumstances around the tornadoes was typical hollywood awfulness, it did very well at capturing the mentality and thought processes of people. I would see it again.

I don't think it will have any influence on storm chasing, at all. The movie was barely about storm chasing, there were just some storm chasing character. The other half of the movie was just people getting stuck in the storm in their hometown. IMO this was more a movie about tornadoes striking towns, rather than storm chasing.

Tangent Topic: I am a person who has to add in driving a considerable distance to chase because of my CHOICE to remain living in the midwest. Im some aspects I think it still requires a bit of forecasting knowledge. At least for me anyways. I have to weigh in the travel time and actually assess if the setup I am heading out for actually has the potential to offer the prize I seek. Since I was not granted the freedom to be able to whisk myself away for every 2% that pops up, I have to pick and choose my battles while juggling work and finances. IMO, that helps one fine tune their forecasting skills.

But as I mentioned above, its my choice. I generally can make it to the plains for the most of the quality days, then return home to the midwest where we, in addition to the N plains (which for me is the same distance as the S plains) get more random summer and fall days while traditional alley bakes in the sun. Every part of the country has those local days that I will miss a tornado in while at the same time giving the local residents some home turf fun. To me missing a random 5% tornado in Oklahoma bears the same weight as missing one in Wisconsin, or Montana, or New York State...shoulda coulda woulda. I would hate to bank my entire season on 2 months in one geographic slab of the country...because we all know that despite the statistics...the weather does what it wants. So for me, I like to keep my options open and vast. Not to say I couldn't still do that if I lived somewhere else, but at this point I don't see myself being any more successful if I did choose to relocate.

I know several chasers who have relocated to the heart of tornado alley in recent years...and not to toot my own horn or sound like a pompuss, but Ive seen more than them in the past 2 years keeping my ass parked here. IMO, its about setting your life up to allow for flexibility to chase, rather than living where the cards are statistically dealt in your favor...buuuuuuuut that could be my location bias mindest talking

 

[ChristofferB]

I saw the movie yesterday with the expectations of seeing a bad movie with good action scenes. I believe I got pretty much that. A few random comments:

- I noted that cut scene as well. Incredible.
- The storms were the cool things of the movie and the movie would probably have been more interesting without actors in it. Or, if they would actually have had actors in it!
- The tornado scenes were, most of the time, really well made. The Joplin scene in the school was quite intense as well as the opening scene.
- For being a tornado movie, it was too far between the tornado scenes! All the "acting" in between was just painful and incredibly un-interesting. In Twister these scenes were so much more interesting - and at least they talked about storms/tornadoes.
- I loved the scene when Reed Casey got shot up in the sky. Stupid, but brilliant.
- The firenado was pretty cool as well.
- The drilling feeling of the tornadoes were really well made.
- As mentioned, why miss out on showing some really cool motherships and structure!
- Why not make a cool hail scene?! They obviously brought the topic up, why not make extreme melon sized hail, I mean it would have been possible considering it could bring a 3 ton tank into the updraft.
- The overview scenes of the tornadoes and wind effects were really well made. I wanted more of that!

I saw the movie with my sister and she asked me how "real" it was. Obviously, it was spectacular and stupid but at least according to Twister's fast twirling tornadoes and Pepsi logo-shaped radars it a least had some sort of resemblance to reality - from a movie logic standpoint ("if it could happen or has happened once, at least it's not completely impossible - and thus could be used").

I looked at the four tornadoes that way. Yes, the four tornadoes were quite stupid, especially the way the came down, how they came down, from what they came down and how they moved. However. One could ague that four tornadoes like that is not completely impossible considering this famous photo: http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumb...tional-f4e18015b3eaa10649149275b0faed3e_h.jpg .

Some ridiculous scenes/effects that comes to my mind:

- The "suction" effect of the tornadoes. I may never have been close to a tornado but the winds won't bring you into a tornado but rather move you in a circular direction around it, unless you are actually in a suction vortex, right?. I have the ridiculous "hanging from the car door" scene in my mind. And the guy who gets sucked into the firenado.

- The eye of the tornado. They got that entrusted scientific fact from Twister.

- The dissipation of large tornadoes. Yup, they got that from Twister as well.

- People die, gets sucked into tornadoes and absolutely no one raises an eyebrow or even comments it.

- "The tornado warning system in the town is all out. They have absolutely nothing that protects them!". Yes, tornado sirens are well known for scaring most tornadoes away.

- When they flee with their buses and get trapped. "We need to go back!" - oh yeah, but have you noticed that about a mile behind you there is a bit of a tornado blocking that way?

- The funnels. I can understand that the typical slow moving pace of a tornado shaping is not quite movie material but c'mon!

- The merging of the tornadoes.



If I didn't know a thing about storms and tornadoes I would have learned from this movie that:

- Tornadoes can come out anywhere from dark skies. It takes about 1-2 seconds before they hit ground.
- Tornadoes dissipate into thin air as fast as they come. Even if they are three miles wide.
- Large tornadoes have an eye that stretches all the way up to the stratosphere. I know that for a fact now because I have seen that in two different movies now.
- You will get sucked directly into a tornado (with no side motion) if you are close enough.
- Photos of tornadoes save lives (the memory card scene).
- Lastly, proximity to tornadoes severely impairs your acting.

 

[Rob H]

In regards to the sucking... every tornado is likely different. I've been within a 1/4 mile of several violent tornadoes with 70mph+ inflow and the only one that had rotational flow at that distance was Rozel. Based on the accounts of people even more daring than I, it seems like direct inflow is can be common until you get extremely close. Just as appearance, strength, and storm type can vary I'd imagine such is the case with near tornado surface patterns. I'm not sure we have a comprehensive set of data on this yet unfortunately - it's all anecdotal from what I've seen.

 

[ChristofferB]

But if there would be a suction effect like it's depicted in the movie the tornado debris would look completely different, it would blow straight into storm and make tornadoes look like a fountain. I'm not arguing that there is an inflow effect but it can't be straight into the tornado like that. Wouldn't the effect rather be that you would be thrown around the tornado a few laps and (perhaps) get closer and closer (while also getting lifted above ground) until you end up in it? As someone mentioned, a tornado is not a distinct feature. It shouldn't just suck things exactly as a Low Pressure (image), right?

I would love to see some graphic on how the winds go, near a tornado. I only deduct my "information" from looking at debris around tornadoes from videos.

 

[Rob H]

I haven't seen the movie so I dont' know exactly what the scene depicted. Langley had extremely strong inflow that was straight into it, even from TWISTEX's rather close vantage point:

Watch video >

You can see the rotational winds outside of the condensation/debris cloud, but they don't extend *that* far. I can see getting sucked in, spun slightly, and then up. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't circle around and around like a shower drain, but I could be wrong.