The Aviator

[Rosspilot]

I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and thought
DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.

The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were typical
Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.





www.Rosspilot.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> I went to see it yesterday.

Thanks for the review.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Rosspilot) wrote:

> I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and
> thought
> DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.

Only the last half, where he was interacting with Sen. Brewster.


> The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were typical
> Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.


I saw it the day after Christmas and thought that it was miscast -- at
least the first half of the movie. DiCaprio obviously has never flown a
plane, as he showed no trace of a scan and moved the yoke like a kid
"playing airplane." The only thing missing was the "Brrrrr" sound. In
the flying scenes he looked like the typical Hollywood airhead.

There was also one major script error. When hughes was plotting to take
TWA international (about '43-'44) he was stalking about the competition
and included Lufthansa. HELLO! We were fighting Germany at the time and
certainly wouldn't expect Lufthansa to survive the war. (They didn't fly
again until the late 1950s)

[Cub Driver]

I agree. I was happily surprised at how good it was, and how little I
objected to the boy-man star.

On 30 Dec 2004 00:50:16 GMT, (Rosspilot)
wrote:

>I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and thought
>DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.
>
>The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were typical
>Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.
>

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:26 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>Lufthansa to survive the war. (They didn't fly
>again until the late 1950s)

In 1958 I was working at The Overseas Weekly, which had its offices on
the second story of the Frankfurt Press Club. (Which no doubt was war
booty of some sort.) A lot of the members of the Press Club were
American pilots flying for Lufthansa.

Someone told me that the deal was that Boeing or Douglas sold the
airplanes to LH complete with air crews.

(Good point about the film and the war. There was little sense that
WWII was actually happening, save as a possible market for Hughes
Aircraft. I doubt that was true even in Hollywood.)

[[email protected]]

Did the ending bother anybody else? We have a rough idea of how it
should end, but after sitting there for three hours I thought they may
as well show it.

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Dec 2004 00:50:16 GMT, (Rosspilot) wrote
in >::

>I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and thought
>DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.

Yes.

I thought Cate Blanchett did an admirable job with her Katharine
Hepburn role also. I had feared that Leonardo DiCaprio's Hughes would
be a cartoon characture, but his performance was remarkable
convincing.

>The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were typical
>Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.

The black and white Hell's Angeles footage of a sky swarming with
airplanes revealed Hughes' obsessive struggle to deliver a product, be
it aeronautical or cinematic, that far exceeded anything that
proceeded it.

The historic HK1 footage was interesting. Clearly, 169 minutes was
woefully inadequate to tell the full Hughes story, but Martin Scorsese
did a good job of giving the non-aviation viewing-public the Hollywood
dirt they relish, unfortunately at the expense of failing to include
all the little aviation related antic dotes and stories which aviation
buffs relish.

In all, I was quite pleasantly surprised and entertained by this
movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338751/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj 0wfHE9YXZpYXRvcnxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1

[C J Campbell]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and
thought
> DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.
>
> The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were
typical
> Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.


Oddly enough, this movie is not even playing at our local theatre. I will
have to go to Poulsbo or someplace to see it.

[Dave]

Agreed!...

I enjoyed it!


A little "Hokey" (aka - "Hollywood" ) at times...

One crash scene (with the twin) was rediculous... but
probably impressed non "aviators" :(

But worth the ticket...

Dave



On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:33:23 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>> I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good, and
>thought
>> DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.
>>
>> The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were
>typical
>> Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.
>
>
>Oddly enough, this movie is not even playing at our local theatre. I will
>have to go to Poulsbo or someplace to see it.
>

[Pilot22a]

I saw it and I thought that the DeCaprio was just a little bit too
effeminate to play a guy like Hughes.

[Cub Driver]

On 30 Dec 2004 06:01:39 -0800, wrote:

>Did the ending bother anybody else? We have a rough idea of how it
>should end, but after sitting there for three hours I thought they may
>as well show it.

Well, the movie just stopped. I think everybody in the tiny 12-holer
theater (five seats to the left of the center aisle, three seats to
the right!) was willing for it to go on for another half-hour, surely
the sign of a successful movie.

I stood up to go, but watched the credits because I wanted to know who
had played Juan Trippe, a fine performance. The gal behind me loudly
said: "Sir?" So she was also hooked enough to want to read the credits
also. I saw a lot of people doing just that. (Well, as many people as
you can get into that theater, which was smaller than the one where
Howard supposedly lived for a time.)

It was a movie, for crying out loud! A movie-movie. Not art, not
biography. A pleasant, dumb, colorful movie that kept me interested
for 2hr 45min or whatever it was.

If you want biography, you might start with George Marrett, Howard
Hughes, Aviator, from Naval Institute Press. Marrett was a Hughes test
pilot who earlier wrote Cheating Death about flying a Sandy Skyraider
in Vietnam.

[Martin Hotze]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:26 GMT, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>There was also one major script error. When hughes was plotting to take
>TWA international (about '43-'44) he was stalking about the competition
>and included Lufthansa. HELLO! We were fighting Germany at the time and
>certainly wouldn't expect Lufthansa to survive the war. (They didn't fly
>again until the late 1950s)


check the LH site:
<http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html>

---snip
(...)
After substantial expansion of the route network in 1939—including flights
to Bangkok and Santiago de Chile—wartime air services, except for a few
European countries, are suspended. All flights are discontinued in 1945 and
Lufthansa goes into receivership and is finally wound up and struck from
the Berlin commercial register in 1965.

The Federal Transport Minister sets up a working committee in 1951 to
prepare for the resumption of air traffic in postwar Germany and entrusts
the job of implementation to "Büro Bongers", the office headed by Hans M.
Bongers, the traffic chief of the old Lufthansa in Cologne. A new company
to run air services and named "Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf"
(Luftag) is founded in Cologne on January 6, 1953. The company changes its
name to the more traditional "Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft" in
1954, and resumes scheduled flights on April 1, 1955.
(...)
---snap

#m
--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[[email protected]]

Don't get me wrong...I really liked it. I was just surprised after
coming that far that it just stopped. Many people I talked to about
the movie who know less that I about Howard Hughes felt the same way.
Maybe it will encourage them to do some reading (gasp) on the subject.

[C J Campbell]

"Pilot22a" > wrote in message
...
> I saw it and I thought that the DeCaprio was just a little bit too
> effeminate to play a guy like Hughes.

And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit effeminate.

[FunPlacesToFly.com]

My family and I are going to see the movie today. It will be cool to
watch it now with all this good prepatory info.
Jim
http://FunPlacesToFly.com
http://HomebuiltWorld.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 07:58:54 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Pilot22a" > wrote in message
...
>> I saw it and I thought that the DeCaprio was just a little bit too
>> effeminate to play a guy like Hughes.
>
>And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit effeminate.
>

Where did you get that idea?

From what I've read, Hughes was quite the ladies man, and a rather
authoritarian captain of industry. Consider, he was able to finesse
(over the phone) Jackie Cochran's new Gamma (?) from her for a record
flight before it was delivered to her, and when he needed a wife to
parry Noah Dietrich's gambit, he was able to cause Jean Peters to
marry him on a moment's notice. Certainly, his performance before
Sen. Brewster's inquisition revealed a commanding demeanor
considerably the other side of effeminate.

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit effeminate.
> >
>
> Where did you get that idea?
>

I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit effeminate.
>> >
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>>
>
>I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.
>

This is the first mention of that I have heard. Do you have a source
to cite?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:33:42 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> >
>>> >And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit effeminate.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Where did you get that idea?
>>>
>>
>>I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.
>>
>
>This is the first mention of that I have heard. Do you have a source
>to cite?
>


It would appear that you are correct:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/15/film-taylor.php

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >And here I understood Hughes to have been just a little bit
effeminate.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where did you get that idea?
> >>
> >
> >I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.
> >
>
> This is the first mention of that I have heard. Do you have a source
> to cite?

"Howard Hughes, the Secret Life" by Charles Higham. Several of the movie
reviews mention it also. For example, OC Weekly describes Hughes'
bisexuality as now proven, but they seem to question whether Hughes ran into
as many "dark handsome men" as Higham alleges. Some of the reviews mention
Hughes' relationship with Cary Grant. Some of the reviews even go so far as
to suggest that Hughes' death was AIDS related.

One reviewer goes the other way -- saying that Hughes' germ phobia must have
prevented him from having sex with anyone, ever, which seems unlikely.

Perhaps 'effeminate' is the wrong choice of words. (What is 'effeminate,'
anyway? Any definition of it must be subjective.) Perhaps I should have said
"decadent."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:25:43 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>"Howard Hughes, the Secret Life" by Charles Higham. Several of the movie
>reviews mention it also. For example, OC Weekly describes Hughes'
>bisexuality as now proven, but they seem to question whether Hughes ran into
>as many "dark handsome men" as Higham alleges. Some of the reviews mention
>Hughes' relationship with Cary Grant.

Thanks.

>Some of the reviews even go so far as
>to suggest that Hughes' death was AIDS related.

Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.

>One reviewer goes the other way -- saying that Hughes' germ phobia must have
>prevented him from having sex with anyone, ever, which seems unlikely.
>
>Perhaps 'effeminate' is the wrong choice of words. (What is 'effeminate,'
>anyway? Any definition of it must be subjective.) Perhaps I should have said
>"decadent."
>

In a word, 'swishy' is the one I would use. However Merriam-Webster
has this to say:

Main Entry:1effeminate
Pronunciation:-n*t
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin effeminatus, from past
participle of effeminare to make effeminate, from ex- + femina
woman more at FEMININE
Date:15th century

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in
appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement *effeminate
art* *an effeminate civilization*


Your revised word choice seems more appropriate.



* http://www.retroplanet.net/3hughes.html
... but the ultimate downfall of Howard Hughes was self-inflicted.
When he finally died in 1976, the billionaire recluse had spent
decades shooting up morphine with hypodermic needles that he never
bothered to have sterilized. Some fragments of the needles Hughes
injected over the years were found still lodged in his arms after
his death!


** http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.3cce

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Some of the reviews even go so far as
> >to suggest that Hughes' death was AIDS related.
>
> Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
> until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.
>

Yeah, the reviewers and biographers who think this say that it might have
been an early form of AIDS. Who knows how many people died before AIDS was
discovered? The theory does not seem consistent to me, either, FWIW.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
> until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.

The first *known and proven* death associated with AIDs occurred in the mid-50s
in England. They did not know it was AIDs at the time.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:47:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
>> until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.
>
>The first *known and proven* death associated with AIDs occurred in the mid-50s
>in England. They did not know it was AIDs at the time.

Thanks for the data point, but it would be more useful to know when
the first AIDS associated death occurred among Hughes' likely
consorts.

[Morgans]

> >>
> >>I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.
> >>
> >
> >This is the first mention of that I have heard. Do you have a source
> >to cite?
> >
>
>
> It would appear that you are correct:
> http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/15/film-taylor.php

Well, there you go! It was written,on the internet, in a movie review, that
HH slept with women and men. Must be TRUE! Give me a break.

Got any FACTUAL cites, anyone?
--
Jim in NC

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:12:29 -0500, Morgans wrote:

>Well, there you go! It was written,on the internet, in a movie review, that
>HH slept with women and men. Must be TRUE! Give me a break.

does it really matter if he srew men and women or only men or only women?

#m
--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:08:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>It would appear that you are correct:
>http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/15/film-taylor.php

I don't know who the writer is. She's certainly entertaining, but when
she says that Hughes inherited a fortune from his father and spent
huge chunks of it making films etc, then she is wildly inaccurate.

Hughes inherited millions of dollars and turned them into billions of
dollars. He was a very, very successful businessman. The movie catches
the wild nature of some of his bets. What it doesn't catch (and what
Ms Taylor chooses to gloss over) is that many of them were hugely
successful.

[Cub Driver]

Ah, come on! Hughes died at 70 or 71. How can we talk about a
self-inflicted death for a man in his seventies? With his diet, his
mental instability, and his drug habit, that he lived so long is a
testament to human endurance. How many of his contemporaries outlived
him? Even for a boy born to a rich family, I'll bet he lived longer
than his life expectancy for one born in 1905 or thereabouts. (I don't
have a birth date for him, but he became CEO of Hughes Tool in 1924 at
the age of 19.)

In any event, I enjoyed the movie, and I also recommend George
Marrett's biography of him, which confines itself to the aviator part:
www.warbirdforum.com/hughes.htm

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:21:10 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:47:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in >::
>
>>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
>>> until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.
>>
>>The first *known and proven* death associated with AIDs occurred in the mid-50s
>>in England. They did not know it was AIDs at the time.
>
>Thanks for the data point, but it would be more useful to know when
>the first AIDS associated death occurred among Hughes' likely
>consorts.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:12:29 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote in >::

>> >>
>> >>I suppose I was thinking of Hughes' bisexuality.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is the first mention of that I have heard. Do you have a source
>> >to cite?
>> >
>>
>>
>> It would appear that you are correct:
>> http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/15/film-taylor.php
>
>Well, there you go! It was written,on the internet, in a movie review, that
>HH slept with women and men. Must be TRUE! Give me a break.
>
>Got any FACTUAL cites, anyone?

The link I cited is from the newspaper, Orange County Weekly, and it
gives its source:

The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham’s hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...


Howard Hughes: The Secret Life
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399138595/qid=1104673756/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5085130-0139233?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


So in this case, it wasn't only written on the Internet.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:20:48 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>How can we talk about a
>self-inflicted death for a man in his seventies?

I agree. It would seem that you are the only one arguing that point.

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
> > until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.
>
> The first *known and proven* death associated with AIDs occurred in the
mid-50s
> in England. They did not know it was AIDs at the time.
>
And there are all the ones who died of it and it wasn't proven, it wasn't
even known.

What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption" generations
ago? I think it's on my grandmothers death certificate.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Ah, come on! Hughes died at 70 or 71. How can we talk about a
> self-inflicted death for a man in his seventies?

Where did "self-inflicted" come from?

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, come on! Hughes died at 70 or 71. How can we talk about a
> self-inflicted death for a man in his seventies? With his diet, his
> mental instability, and his drug habit, that he lived so long is a
> testament to human endurance. How many of his contemporaries outlived
> him? Even for a boy born to a rich family, I'll bet he lived longer
> than his life expectancy for one born in 1905 or thereabouts. (I don't
> have a birth date for him, but he became CEO of Hughes Tool in 1924 at
> the age of 19.)
>
> In any event, I enjoyed the movie, and I also recommend George
> Marrett's biography of him, which confines itself to the aviator part:
> www.warbirdforum.com/hughes.htm
>

Also, "Hughes" by Richard Hack, derived largely from Hughes' private
diaries.
"The Private Diary of Howard Hughes. Hack. At long last - the definitive
biography of the legendary Howard Hughes based on newly uncovered personal
letters, sealed court testimony, recently declassified FBI files and
never-before-revealed autopsy findings with eight pages of rare and
never-before-seen photographs. A remarkable book that lifts the veil of
secrecy that has surrounded one of the world's most enigmatic and mysterious
men. 500 pgs., hdbd."
http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po?ID=4322


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption" generations
> ago?

We call it tuberculosis.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Carl WA1KPD]

Saw the movie last night. Anybody here have a recommendation for a good
biography (not a sensationalist rag) that covers his whole life? I see
several on Amazon and am looking for recommendations.
Thanks and happy new year

--
Carl
WA1KPD
Visit My Boatanchor Collection at
http://home.comcast.net/~chnord/wa1kpd.html

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >
>> > Given the fact that Hughes died in 1976*, and AIDS wasn't discovered
>> > until 1986**, that is an unlikely cause of his death.
>>
>> The first *known and proven* death associated with AIDs occurred in the
> mid-50s
>> in England. They did not know it was AIDs at the time.
>>
> And there are all the ones who died of it and it wasn't proven, it wasn't
> even known.
>
> What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption" generations
> ago? I think it's on my grandmothers death certificate.
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:08:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>
> Hughes inherited millions of dollars and turned them into billions of
> dollars. He was a very, very successful businessman. The movie catches
> the wild nature of some of his bets. What it doesn't catch (and what
> Ms Taylor chooses to gloss over) is that many of them were hugely
> successful.

Very true. I greatly admire Hughes as a businessman, yet this is the aspect
of his life that Hollywood seems to find most distasteful, as if the only
people entitled to be rich are movie stars.

[Jim Herring]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:08:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hughes inherited millions of dollars and turned them into billions of
> > dollars. He was a very, very successful businessman. The movie catches
> > the wild nature of some of his bets. What it doesn't catch (and what
> > Ms Taylor chooses to gloss over) is that many of them were hugely
> > successful.
>
> Very true. I greatly admire Hughes as a businessman, yet this is the aspect
> of his life that Hollywood seems to find most distasteful, as if the only
> people entitled to be rich are movie stars.

If you look at the companies Hughes owned, the successful ones were those that
he hired others to run. Those that he ran tended to do poorly. He did have the
knack for picking companies that could be winners.



--
Jim

carry on

[C J Campbell]

"Jim Herring" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you look at the companies Hughes owned, the successful ones were those
that
> he hired others to run. Those that he ran tended to do poorly. He did have
the
> knack for picking companies that could be winners.

One of the worst mistakes a businessman at that level can make is to try to
run things himself. You have to know when to fire yourself.

[Cub Driver]

>The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
> though Charles Higham’s hastily written and mostly hostile
> biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:52:27 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Very true. I greatly admire Hughes as a businessman, yet this is the aspect
>of his life that Hollywood seems to find most distasteful, as if the only
>people entitled to be rich are movie stars.

Now that you mention it....

Hughes goes to visit Helpburn's family, where he is told that they
don't discuss money. Hughes mumbles: "That's because you've always had
it." He seems to be the gauche nouveau riche. But of course Hughes was
born rich, too, probably richer than Helpburn's family.

I suppose though that there's a difference between Dallas? rich and
Cos Cob? rich.

[Cub Driver]

>What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption" generations
>ago?

Tuberculosis.

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:49:17 -0500, "Carl WA1KPD"
> wrote:

>Saw the movie last night. Anybody here have a recommendation for a good
>biography (not a sensationalist rag) that covers his whole life? I

Howard Hughes, Aviator

See my review at www.warbirdforum.com/hughes.htm

[Cub Driver]

>Where did "self-inflicted" come from?

From the folks trying to dig up an AIDS cause of death to explain his
"early" demise.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>
>>The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
>> though Charles Higham’s hastily written and mostly hostile
>> biography of Hughes ...
>
>Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
>How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
>source?


I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
these allegations.

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
> > though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
> > biography of Hughes ...
>
> Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
> How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
> source?

I dismissed the statement as worthless.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption"
generations
> >ago?
>
> Tuberculosis.
>

Oh!

Thanks...I guess :~)

According to an elderly uncle (94 and still going) people used to be called
"queer", then "mentally retarded", then "mentally disabled", then "mentally
challenged", and next year...what?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
> > > though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
> > > biography of Hughes ...
> >
> > Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
> > How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
> > source?
>
> I dismissed the statement as worthless.
>
To say the least!!

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >>The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
> >> though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
> >> biography of Hughes ...
> >
> >Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
> >How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
> >source?
>
>
> I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
> succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
> reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
> these allegations.

I found one site that said where he got it, but I cannot find it again. It
looked like a third hand account, at best.

Trying to track it down, Amazon.com's editorial reviews seem to accept
Hughes' bisexuality, while saying that Higham's allegations concerning AIDS
and his sexuality being warped by being abused while a child are
speculative. Washington Post's movie review also claimed disappointment that
the movie did not cover Hughes' bisexuality, heroine addiction, or other
unpleasant aspects of his life (apparently the reviewer only likes movies
that glorify weakness, moral ambiguity and decay; since this reviewer hates
the movie, I will probably like it).

Other reviews on rottentomatoes.com also refer to Hughes' affairs with Cary
Grant and Tyrone Power.

Personally, I am not interested in those aspects of Hughes' life. I am more
interested than ever in seeing the movie, especially since it seems to have
avoided at least the most trashy accounts.

[Ron McKinnon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>
>>>>The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
>>>> though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
>>>> biography of Hughes ...
>>>
>>>Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
>>>How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
>>>source?
>>
>>
>>I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
>>succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
>>reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
>>these allegations.
>
>
> I found one site that said where he got it, but I cannot find it again. It
> looked like a third hand account, at best.

Nevermind that Hughes died a decade before AIDS appeared, or perhaps
recognized as such.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Rosspilot > posted:

> I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good,
> and thought DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.
>
> The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were
> typical Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.
>
I thought that there were some things that seemed to be glossed over, and
other things that left me wondering. For instance, why was the
Constellation fleet grounded? They referred to the Pennsylvania crash, but
the sequence of events suggested that the reason for the grounding may
have been politically driven. Anyone know the facts?

I was somewhat amused by the wing of the experimental spy plane slicing
through several apartments of a brick building, though I don't think that
the "artistic license" of that move improved the scene any.

All in all, it was entertaining, and made me want to see "Hells Angels"
again.

Neil

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >Where did "self-inflicted" come from?
>
> From the folks trying to dig up an AIDS cause of death to explain his
> "early" demise.

Dying from the effects of a disease is hardly self-inflicted.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Mutts]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:20:48 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>Marrett's biography of him, which confines itself to the aviator part:
>www.warbirdforum.com/hughes.htm
>

Very enlightening link.

OK, the movie is called "The Aviator".

What was this "aviator" like?


.....Daily lessons yet took a year to earn his certificate. Thats DAILY
lessons!

....wrecked many aircraft, *killing* two of his crew.

....used "road maps" instead of aeronautical charts to save money

.... Ignored ATC (gasp!)

.... Lied on flight plans

.... Flew VFR in IMC

.... Cut off others in the pattern

....Abandoned aircraft


Hey wow, great guy.
Why didnt they call the movie "The Rich Wacko **** Poor Aviator"?

ahh the good ol days huh?

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption"
> generations
> > >ago?
> >
> > Tuberculosis.
> >
>
> Oh!
>
> Thanks...I guess :~)
>
> According to an elderly uncle (94 and still going) people used to be
called
> "queer", then "mentally retarded", then "mentally disabled", then
"mentally
> challenged", and next year...what?

Politican, lawyer, .....

> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:37:29 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>All in all, it was entertaining, and made me want to see "Hells Angels"
>again.

You, me, and lots of others! When I queued it up on Netflix on Dec 27,
it showed as Available Now. By the time my next disk was due to be
mailed, it was flagged Long Wait.

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:28:25 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>Dying from the effects of a disease is hardly self-inflicted.

AIDS is often a lifestyle disease, like lung cancer or cihorris of the
liver, hence self-inflicted.

[Mutts]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:20:19 GMT, Lady Chatterly
> wrote:

>>.....Daily lessons yet took a year to earn his certificate. Thats DAILY
>>lessons!
>
>>....wrecked many aircraft, *killing* two of his crew.
>
>>....used "road maps" instead of aeronautical charts to save money
>
>>.... Ignored ATC (gasp!)
>
>Big band swing, demo hornerg.
>
>>.... Lied on flight plans
>
>>.... Flew VFR in IMC
>
>>.... Cut off others in the pattern
>
>>....Abandoned aircraft
>
>>Hey wow, great guy.
>>Why didnt they call the movie "The Rich Wacko **** Poor Aviator"?
>
>Why do you think that not they call the movie the rich wacko **** poor
>aviator?


$$$ of course. Happy hero pilot sells better then the truth.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:13:10 -0800, Mutts > wrote in
>::

>$$$ of course. Happy hero pilot sells better then the truth.

You must have missed this:

"No.. its not BuZZard.. its a bot. It cracks me up seeing people
actually reply to the bot.. ROFLMAO!" -- BuZZard

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:28:25 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote:
>
> >Dying from the effects of a disease is hardly self-inflicted.
>
> AIDS is often a lifestyle disease, like lung cancer or cihorris of the
> liver, hence self-inflicted.

If death resulting from the risks of a lifestyle is defined as self-inflicted,
then anyone who dies in a plane crash committed suicide.

Someday you should learn to speak English. It's a really neat language.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jay Honeck]

> If death resulting from the risks of a lifestyle is defined as
> self-inflicted,
> then anyone who dies in a plane crash committed suicide.

I have relatives who wouldn't argue against that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave]

Ubber wings... Where can I get some?

I could even take on the ocasional snowbank without damage.. :)

Dave


On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:37:29 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, Rosspilot > posted:
>

>I was somewhat amused by the wing of the experimental spy plane slicing
>through several apartments of a brick building, though I don't think that
>the "artistic license" of that move improved the scene any.

[Mutts]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:13:10 -0800, Mutts > wrote in
>::
>
>>$$$ of course. Happy hero pilot sells better then the truth.
>
>You must have missed this:
>
> "No.. its not BuZZard.. its a bot. It cracks me up seeing people
> actually reply to the bot.. ROFLMAO!" -- BuZZard
>
>


Dang.
Do/will bots respond to bots too? Maybe we are all wasting our time here, er,
wasting MORE time here. Let the bots talk to each other.

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:1vECd.22965$wu4.16407@attbi_s52...
>> If death resulting from the risks of a lifestyle is defined as self-inflicted,
>> then anyone who dies in a plane crash committed suicide.
>
> I have relatives who wouldn't argue against that.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Or even in a car crash then...


;-)



--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:33:18 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>Someday you should learn to speak English. It's a really neat language.

I'd forgotten that I had you in a kill file. I created a new iteration
of Agent, and my kill files fell out.

Plonk!

[Gary Drescher]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:28:25 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote:
>
>>Dying from the effects of a disease is hardly self-inflicted.
>
> AIDS is often a lifestyle disease, like lung cancer or cihorris of the
> liver, hence self-inflicted.

But when you dismissed the possibility that his death was "self-inflicted",
as you put it (and you subsequently affirmed that you were referring there
to AIDS), you then proposed *instead* of "self-infliction" that "his diet...
and his drug habit" are among the more plausible explanations (as indeed
they are). By what conceivable rationale would an AIDS death be more
"self-inflicted" than a diet- or drug-induced death (*especially* at a time
when the danger of AIDS was *not even known*)?

When pressed, you retreated to a standard of "self-infliction" by which the
vast majority of Americans' deaths would qualify. Clearly, though, you
ordinarily use the term far more selectively, as your original statement
demonstrates.

--Gary

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:34:31 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>When pressed, you retreated to a standard of "self-infliction" by which the
>vast majority of Americans' deaths would qualify. Clearly, though, you
>ordinarily use the term far more selectively, as your original statement
>demonstrates.

I don't know what the f*** you're talking about, and I am losing
interest in the discussion.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:07:53 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:34:31 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:
>
>>When pressed, you retreated to a standard of "self-infliction" by which the
>>vast majority of Americans' deaths would qualify. Clearly, though, you
>>ordinarily use the term far more selectively, as your original statement
>>demonstrates.
>
>I don't know what the f*** you're talking about, and I am losing
>interest in the discussion.

Jose,

Would this qualify as an example of Larry's Corollary?