The More I Watch The Hunt For Red October the more I like K-19 The Widowmaker

Bruno Anthony

Bruno Anthony

The Morons are winning
Joined
5 August 2012
Messages
976
Reaction score
977
The set design for the sub in K-19 was so much better than for Hunt For Red October. The more I watch it the plot holes in HFR get big enough to sail a Typhoon class through them.
 
According to a behind-the-scenes documentary I saw, the set design for Red October was apparently influenced by aviation instrumentation and aesthetics to provide a visual contrast with the Dallas.
I agree it doesn't really pull it off well. It looks far too gimmicky with random buttons and glowing dials everywhere. The missile section has more mood lightning that your average discotheque!

The set design for the K-19 was actually based on real plans so is much more authentic.
Submarine interiors in films since the 1930s have always varied from the absurd to the hyper-realistic with not much in between.
 
Hood said:
According to a behind-the-scenes documentary I saw, the set design for Red October was apparently influenced by aviation instrumentation and aesthetics to provide a visual contrast with the Dallas.
I agree it doesn't really pull it off well. It looks far too gimmicky with random buttons and glowing dials everywhere. The missile section has more mood lightning that your average discotheque!

The set design for the K-19 was actually based on real plans so is much more authentic.
Submarine interiors in films since the 1930s have always varied from the absurd to the hyper-realistic with not much in between.
Click to expand...
Did they not know in 1989 when making HFR that Soviet subs have standardized paint colors for psychological reasons as do Soviet aircraft? Maybe they didn’t.
But black walls, way off.

I know I’m committing heresy by knocking HFR and Clancy. Like saying Reagan didn’t win the Cold War single handed.
 
And why did the Americans even give any consideration to the Soviet claim that Ramius had gone rogue?

If he was a rogue captain with the intention to launch missiles, he could have done so from the Barents Sea and then disappeared in the subsequent apocalyptic chaos - no need to go making a target of himself in an Atlantic fox hunt.

The fact he hadn't done so strongly suggested that the Soviets were lying.

Edit to add: maybe he wanted to get close to reduce middle flight time? But why would he care, one Typhoon wasn't capable of taking out the US ICBM arsenal so most of the Yank missiles would fly anyhow.

Edited again: apparently in the novel, Ryan points out that the Typhoon could have fired its missiles from the pier and this was a significant factor in convincing the US executive that he was defecting. A pity this was dropped in the movie.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
I would hope so given they used a real decommissioned Juliette class submarine (K-77) to represent the K-19.
Click to expand...
Right because the internal paint scheme of a Soviet sub was obviously beyond the knowledge of US intel capabilities in 1989. TOP SECRET!!
 
So I had not seen K-19 previously. In the interests of an accurate reply, I forced myself to watch it (ok, I skimmed parts).

K-19 is quite frankly ridiculous garbage. Hunt for Red October takes a few liberties, but is overall generally realistic, you can tell they tried to be realistic, and the departures are reasonable and logical. K-19 is a dramatic crap fest set on a submarine. Ok, the interior fittings are generally appropriate for a Soviet boat, however pretty much everything else about the movie is garbage. Examples:

Bow planes do not change ship's angle - that's what stern planes are for, yet they never seem to exist.

Ship settles on depth with a significant down angle, then magically levels off. Again solely because the bow planes are moved.

The reactor 'book of emergency procedures' is stowed randomly in a locker is some room on the other end of the boat, and the watchstander isn't, not to mention the reactor control panel is a child's toy.

Command and control, operational procedures, pretty much everything submarine related is just plain wrong. Admittedly it doesn't supersede Crimson Tide as the worst submarine movie ever made, but it's a close runner up.



Keep in mind Hunt for Red October was written during the bold war, and the movie filmed right at the end. Public information about submarines at that time was essentially nonexistent. Given the amount of public info he had to work with, it's rather amazing the book is as realistic as it is. K-19 in contrast was after a decade of far greater public information on subs, and today we have even more.
 
Honestly, the more unrealistic a submarine movie is... the more I love it. The diggits get really really mad about it and there's always that one insufferable person who has to "well ackchually" everyone throughout the entire film.

(Every time I hear there's an adaptation of some popular IP coming to TV or the movies, that same little evil part of me hopes it's really bad so I can enjoy the nerd rage online.)
 
sdmuleman said:
So I had not seen K-19 previously. In the interests of an accurate reply, I forced myself to watch it (ok, I skimmed parts).

K-19 is quite frankly ridiculous garbage. Hunt for Red October takes a few liberties, but is overall generally realistic, you can tell they tried to be realistic, and the departures are reasonable and logical. K-19 is a dramatic crap fest set on a submarine. Ok, the interior fittings are generally appropriate for a Soviet boat, however pretty much everything else about the movie is garbage. Examples:

Bow planes do not change ship's angle - that's what stern planes are for, yet they never seem to exist.

Ship settles on depth with a significant down angle, then magically levels off. Again solely because the bow planes are moved.

The reactor 'book of emergency procedures' is stowed randomly in a locker is some room on the other end of the boat, and the watchstander isn't, not to mention the reactor control panel is a child's toy.

Command and control, operational procedures, pretty much everything submarine related is just plain wrong. Admittedly it doesn't supersede Crimson Tide as the worst submarine movie ever made, but it's a close runner up.



Keep in mind Hunt for Red October was written during the bold war, and the movie filmed right at the end. Public information about submarines at that time was essentially nonexistent. Given the amount of public info he had to work with, it's rather amazing the book is as realistic as it is. K-19 in contrast was after a decade of far greater public information on subs, and today we have even more.
Click to expand...
Shaking the Clancy Tree and especially HFR will rattle a few cages. The submarine “action” wasn’t as bad as the plot holes you see when you see it too many times. Ryan convincing a sub capt he met about 3 mins b4 to disobey his orders to fire is one you see after a while.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
Was this fiction book written by US intelligence or a civilian author do you think?
Click to expand...
Clancy’s book? This one probably himself. Later on, the entire defense industry was handing him manuscripts I think. He then just had to supply suitably patriotic characters who believed in small govt and deregulation.
 
For anyone whos interested theres a 1986 soviet submarine film,The Cry of the Dolphin [Крик дельфина] which is set aboard a united states navy ohio class ballistic missile sub [Played by a project 667A Yankee class]
Its not very good but it does nave some scenes in it that are inadvertently weird &/or funny,such as a kidnapped disco dancer being shot out of a torpedo tube & a scene with the crew stripping down & dancing in a fountain to gloria gaynors "I will survive".
The actor who played the captain was a pretty famous soviet actor,Donatos Banionis.who played Kris Kelvin in the 1972 version of Solaris
 
Sineva said:
which is set aboard a united states navy ohio class ballistic missile sub [Played by a project 667A Yankee class]
Click to expand...

The irony, given that YANKEE was assigned as an in-joke as the 667 was considered a clone of Polaris boats. Full circle.

Tangentially, the NATO reporting names for Soviet submarines was one of the most unimaginative, short-sighted schemes ever devised. Could nobody really think of anything better than alphabetical names*? Did they never consider that the Soviets might build more than 26 classes?

They could have named them after dog breeds, or stars, or types of cheese and it would have been more useful.


* and why start with QUEBEC?!
 
Clancy's novel is better than the film in terms of plot - cutting out the whole USS Pigeon section meant that indeed the DSRV just magically appears aboard Dallas . The book's plot is more involved and perhaps a little more practical in terms of how the deception was managed that the US didn't gain possession of the sub (sinking the decommissioned USS Ethan Allen in its place).
That it entirely omits the RN presence in the plot is perhaps understandable for Hollywood.

In the book, the Red October is stated as being armed with "SS-N-20 Seahawk" SLBMs, which are said to be developed from the ground-based SS-18 ‘Satan’ [R-36M]. A missile that has even greater range than the Typhoon's real R-39/SS-N-20 'Sturgeon'. So indeed it could have comfortably fired its missiles from within the Bastions. But of course for the film that would mean no tension (even though the viewer knows Raimus' intentions).

Fun trivia fact. Joss Ackland stars in both films, as Andrei Lysenko the Soviet Ambassador in Red October and as Marshal Zelentsov, Defence Minister in K-19.
 
Hood said:
Clancy's novel is better than the film in terms of plot - cutting out the whole USS Pigeon section meant that indeed the DSRV just magically appears aboard Dallas . The book's plot is more involved and perhaps a little more practical in terms of how the deception was managed that the US didn't gain possession of the sub (sinking the decommissioned USS Ethan Allen in its place). That it entirely omits the RN presence in the plot is perhaps understandable for Hollywood.

In the book, the Red October is stated as being armed with "SS-N-20 Seahawk" SLBMs, which are said to be developed from the ground-based SS-18 ‘Satan’ [R-36M]. A missile that has even greater range than the Typhoon's real R-39/SS-N-20 'Sturgeon'. So indeed it could have comfortably fired its missiles from within the Bastions. But of course for the film that would mean no tension (even though the viewer knows Raimus' intentions).
Click to expand...
Bingo. I red the novel as a teen and hugely enjoyed it. Later I watched the movie - bad, terrible mistake. I hated it because it cut so much from the book. Never have rewatched it.

Red Storm Rising is terrific, too. I can see why Hollywood never adopted it : too dated and too broad in scope. I wish Netflix adapted it, or another streaming company.

Weirdly, even if I'm a space nerd and a fan of Red October, I could never finish Cardinal of Kremlin.

Outside those three books most Clancy is crap...
 
Archibald said:
Bingo. I red the novel as a teen and hugely enjoyed it. Later I watched the movie - bad, terrible mistake. I hated it because it cut so much from the book. Never have rewatched it.

Red Storm Rising is terrific, too. I can see why Hollywood never adopted it : too dated and too broad in scope. I wish Netflix adapted it, or another streaming company.

Weirdly, even if I'm a space nerd and a fan of Red October, I could never finish Cardinal of Kremlin.

Outside those three books most Clancy is crap...
Click to expand...
Now that Hollywood is practically dead it is possible to make the film with AI, very good things were already being done five years ago.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EceDF5ltc&list=RDMM&index=3
 
Hood said:
So indeed it could have comfortably fired its missiles from within the Bastions.
Click to expand...
Sturgeon had necessary range. Obviously a plot point not brought up in either the book or movie because otherwise there’s no book or movie.

Ntm, your new silent propulsion system that apparently has an obvious acoustic signature that your own Navy can’t detect but is easily detected by small govt Republicans. Screenshot_20201216-073541_Twitter.jpeg
 
They got the Alfa class control room right in the sense they were highly centrally controlled.
 
A quick, slightly off topic aside on Clancy in general:

Clancy was not necessarily the first but definitely promoted a worldview that if the commies in the USSR un-commied themselves, they’d be welcomed in to the big Caucasian Christian club. This way all those weapons can be collectively pointed at um “other places” that need some weapon pointing at.
 
Russians like to watch Hollywood movies about them. A curious set of old cliches and rampant propaganda. For example, Rimbaud-2 is very good. But I didn't remember "The Hunt for Red October" at all, I watched it once and was disappointed. The book is much more interesting
By the way, the idea that a ship's commander can launch ballistic missiles on his own is beyond stupid.
 
If your looking for a really really really bad 'submarine' depiction in the media which makes HFRO. look like a docudrama, try BBC.'s Vigil ... sooo sooooo bad in every way
One would have thought to at least sketch out the layout of a boat to ensure consistiency, areas seemed to be based upon, actually iv no idea what !
(typical of BBC. tho, their series 'technical advisor' being an anti military politico who has never been on one !)

I have a few friends who are ex 'boomers' you can imagine the rants re this one, funny thing is, it was suggested if it was set on a 'normal' instead of a 'V boat' they might got away with the heavy handed characters and strange highly implausible plotline (probably internal digs from the service but iv heard of some 'you couldnt make this shit up' things have taken place on the 'A boats', although i think anyone serving on those things must be a bit touched, lol)
 
Last edited:
TsrJoe said:
If your looking for a really really really bad 'submarine' depiction in the media which makes HFRO. look like a docudrama, try BBC.'s Vigil ... sooo sooooo bad in every way
One would have thought to at least sketch out the layout of a boat to ensure consistiency, areas seemed to be based upon, actually iv no idea what !
(typical of BBC. tho, their series 'technical advisor' being an anti military politico who has never been on one !)

I have a few friends who are ex 'boomers' you can imagine the rants re this one, funny thing is, it was suggested if it was set on a 'normal' instead of a 'V boat' they might got away with the heavy handed characters and strange highly implausible plotline (probably internal digs from the service but iv heard of some 'you couldnt make this shit up' things have taken place on the 'A boats', although i think anyone serving on those things must be a bit touched, lol)
Click to expand...
Yeah, honestly there's a certain suspension of disbelief required and authors/creators will often take some creative license and that's fine... but sometimes it's a bit too much creative license.

Honestly, it's somehow even worse when an author with a bit of credibility does this, because then enthusiasts assume everything in the book is accurate.

Take HFRO (the book) for example, DALLAS had a magical machine (the BC-10) that automatically classified contacts... nothing like this existed in 1984. Ultimately that's fine, there's no reason to go into all of the tedium involved in classifying a contact and Clancy wouldn't know those details anyway. Problem is, a bunch of nerds read that and believe it's real. It's just as real as the magnetohydrodynamic drive.

There's honestly a lot of bad sonar in HFRO, more bad than good--and I swear I see a lot of people online whose understanding of sonar (and submarine operations altogether) is about HFRO-deep.

(In fact, I generally call them "Clancyisms" when someone spouts some nonsense that they obviously learned from HFRO/RSR.)
 
In my opinion, the Western world needs more Clancy’s who point to a better future and fewer Crichton’s to tell us everything that can go wrong.
 
tychosis said:
There's honestly a lot of bad sonar in HFRO, more bad than good--and I swear I see a lot of people online whose understanding of sonar (and submarine operations altogether) is about HFRO-deep.
Click to expand...
Enthusiastic about learning :)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom