Jump to content
Welcome to the new Earwolf Forums! Read more... ×
JulyDiaz

Episode 168 - Hard Ticket to Hawaii: LIVE!

Recommended Posts

that's fair enough.

See, I don't think they frame it in the same way as those other podcasts because they really aren't trying to do any of that same stuff. I believe they really put it out there that all they are doing is being two women who are sharing stories with each other (and the subsequently the world). In one later episode that I listened to recently they said over and over "we're not experts" because they really wanted to get across that they are just human and they really want to talk about this topic because it's what interests them. They have no intentions of making anyone focus on one certain case that's currently on-going.

 

But I respect that you did not enjoy it and if you don't enjoy it after listening to a later episode then I can respect that as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

As ridiculous as the movie is, from my perspective as a former small plane pilot at least they got some of the flying parts right. It looks like they actually had a real pilot consulting the actors on set.

 

For example, someone in the episode made fun of how one of the pilots was moving the flaps (actually they are the ailerons) up and down like she does not know what she is doing, but this procedure is actually a part of the real pre-flight check list of the Cessna 172P Skyhawk used in the movie. The free movement of the ailerons needs to be checked out to see that there are no obstructions. She even correctly seems to quickly check out the leading edge of the wing for dirt or other imperfections.

 

In the background of the same scene the other pilot is following the checklist by checking out the engine oil level and just a few seconds later they even check the fuel system for water or other contaminants (when they drain some fuel from the wing to a cup and then pour it on the ground). These procedures are shown in this educational aviation video at timestamps 6:00, 6:45 and 7:25. The oil check at 10:14 is a bit different because the oil dipstick is in a different place on the older model Cessna used in the movie.

 

 

They dangerously seem to skip most of the checklist, though. For example they do not check the condition of the propeller, elevator, rudder, landing gear or the important operation of the actual flaps, that are used to generate more lift during landing and takeoff and are powered by an electric motor. Maybe they checked them earlier? The checklist should be run in one session though.

 

Other observations:

 

- Is that little Cessna 172 the only cargo plane of the company? No other pilots or planes with the company markings are seen. Most of the crates in that warehouse would not fit on that plane at all, the snake crate barely fits through the luggage door. The actual cargo capacity of a Cessna in that configuration with passengers and full fuel is only about 100-200 pounds, depending on the weight and balance calculations. That would maybe be just enough for the camping gear and the huge snake that they can barely lift: "This thing weighs a ton!". It is a not a plane that would be used by a profitable flight cargo company.

- They are shown flicking imaginary overhead switches and unnecessarily adjusting the outside temperature gauge before the takeoff to make it seem more dramatic than it is.

- They leave their radios on when they leave the plane. This means that they have left the main power on. This would drain the small Cessna battery rather quickly as many of the electrical systems are also left operating. If there is no power left for the starter motor, they would then need to start the engine manually by turning the prop, which is a unnecessarily difficult, slow and dangerous procedure. The language used in radio transmissions is real enough though.

- Also, there is no point to leave the radios on, as it would be likely that they would not operate very well. They may theoretically be in the VHF radio range with the base, but in practice, aviation radios need a line of sight at altitude to operate over distances. The plane antenna is small, low powered and the curvature of the earth, trees, buildings, hills etc. limit the range to just a few miles when on the ground.

- Someone earlier asked about landing on a golf course. It is not generally allowed without a permission from the land owner, but a soft field landing and takeoff is a normal operation for a Cessna, needing a little more distance for takeoffs and landings compared to a paved runway.

- Edit: Out of curiosity I tracked down the plane used in the film: Looks like it was sold to a flight school in Australia in 1994. It was involved in a heavy landing by a flight student in 1997 and suffered heavy damage. It seems to have been repaired though, latest photo of the plane that can be found is from 2012.

 

Sorry for my English, I am not a native speaker. Greetings from Finland, loving the show!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

There's really only been a few that afterwards I was like "okay I need a palette cleanser" because they involved torture or children (or both like jfc how fucked up can you be).

I gave it a listen. It'll take some getting used to after listening to the more traditional true-crime podcasts. Definitely worth trying out, but I don't think it'll unseat some of my favorites. I don't think this is the podcast that I listened to before where I thought it was terrible and turned it off before making it through the first episode, so that's a good start!

Share this post


Link to post

It seemed the group had a hard time understanding some of the odd lines in this movie as did I but one I think I understood was the joke about the nude lawn mowing wife. So he says his wife used to mow the lawn nude and people would ask if he married her for her money. Lets imagine that either big boobs or small boobs was this wife. If she was out there all the time mowing the lawn naked I am pretty sure the neighborhood would enjoy it. Now if an unattractive woman was doing this people might react differently and not not want to see it. So I believe the joke is obviously about the attractiveness of the wife and could be said as "well you ' marry her for her looks/body so you must have married her for her money"

Share this post


Link to post

that's fair enough. like i said i only listened to the first 2 episodes so it should only be taken in that context. i can't remember specifics but i was angered by the humor and the lack of research. you shouldn't publish true crime stories without being as factual as you possibly can and without full respect for the subject matter. i believe it to be in bad taste to be honest. i really don't think humor is the best vehicle for true crime. i'm sure we've all indulged in "gallows humor" when discussing heavy stuff like this with friends but i would never publish it. in saying that, if they were talking about fictional crime i wouldn't have a problem about it.

 

i have a similar problem with some other true crime podcasts. some of them are close to a sort of crime pornography (probably not the best turn of phrase there but some people seem to get off on the details). sword and scale is coming to mind. i mean it's nothing new but it's a mass market thing now and i've developed a problem with it.

 

the only crime podcast i listen to anymore is criminal. i think they do it well and in the correct tone. i haven't listened to a whole lot of crime podcasts in about a year to be honest. i just think it's not being done properly by alot of people. they're searching out unsolved cases or cases where they believe the wrong person has been convicted and they're making some very strong cases against people who they think are really responsible for the crime.

 

serial is a prime example of this. i have no idea if adnan killed hae min but i can see why he was convicted (i can also see why people believe him to be innocent). but to go out and turn so many people against this jay guy ... that's so dangerous. he might have been the one who killed her, i've no idea, but he was thrown to the wolves by, at best, amateur detectives. this put him and his family in alot danger and must have scared the s##t out of them. and it's been copied over and over again. i've been sucked in myself by these shows. making a murder is another one. i had to stop listening to/watching them.

 

 

but that's just my opinion. to each their own. people get offended by different things i guess

 

Like you, I've only listened to a couple of episodes of it but it really bothered me that they were getting basic acts wrong about various crimes (admittedly I am hugely biased bc I went to college for criminology) but like the Karla Homolka case, they literally couldn't be arsed to read the wiki page beforehand? They got a bunch of facts wrong in that episode - like basic facts like what city the murders mostly took place in - "I want to say Ottawa? Or maybe Vancouver? Somewhere Canada, though." And as I said it put me off because it's like why bother discussing these crimes (even in a conversational and casual manner) if you are fast and loose with what you're talking about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to share that my friend's magazine Weng's Chop just did an article on Andy Sidaris in the new issue. You can check out a screen shot of the first page of the article and link for info on how to get the magazine here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/wengschopmagazine/photos/a.392008740882079.93032.297392610343693/1428413097241633/?type=3&theater

 

You guys would all dig this magazine, really great stuff in there.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it was discussed on the podcast or earlier in the message boards, but there is another incredibly ridiculous line. They are meeting another woman at the restaurant shortly after they shot that guy in the face.

 

Donna says "I just shot Seth Romero in the face. I should've killed him."

The girl they're meeting responds with "You may wish you had. The best you can hope for now is crutches."

 

Crutches? For being shot in the face? Hahahaha. I had to rewind it to make sure I heard correctly. I know its nothing compared to all the sexist and genuinely awful moments of dialogue in this movie but I thought it should at least be brought up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So is the Cancer Snake like the Patient zero for throat cancer? Kinda of like the monkey in Outbreak? I guess the moral of the story is all ways check twice before cunnilingus.

Share this post


Link to post

This was one of the more cocaine fueled films that HDTGM has taken on, and that's really saying something. But clearly it was either written in a hotel room or poolside, next to a mountain of cocaine. The male dialogue in the restaurant was seriously on par with Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate." I'm pretty sure Sidaris just brought that blow up doll to the set as a joke and then was like, "Hey, let's get this in the shot! It'll be funny." I'm surprised the incredibly racist Asian accents done by Rowdy and Jade weren't addressed in the podcast.

Share this post


Link to post

I made this but couldn't upload it in time 'cuz no internet or electricity until now...

 

8xkgaKv.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×