The Reality Correlators

There are individuals who will put down or raise up a production based on its adherence to realism. If it wasn't obvious, I happen to be one of those people, but realism is in itself an umbrella term.

I do not particularly care for realism in characters because realistic characters can be realistically detestable and so an increase in character realism does not necessarily translate into an increase in enjoyment. So long as characters are not conveniently contrived, appropriately intelligent, and do not suddenly become stupid at key moments, I am generally content.

When it comes to technolgy, I do have some expectations. Short-term projection into the future is fine. Something that could be built today is good, too. Plausibility trumps improbability, in a nutshell. Maybe that's why I root for the tank against the mobile suit, because I relish the moment when outlandish fiction is crushed by the force of APFSDS and HEAT.

I have no issues with Sky Crawlers in this department. Whether or not you feel the same way depends in part on how much you buy into the premise, which necessarily places constraints on what can and cannot be done.

The Planes

Oshii wanted to make sure that all planes depicted in the film are buildable. Can we build radial engine fighter aircraft today? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is plausible. And, as it turns out, some of the airframes are from fighters that saw service during WWII.

The planes generally fly according to SCIENCE, with one exception: The Teacher's plane has thrust vectoring. I'm pretty adamant about this, insisting that he couldn't pull off Pugachev's Cobra without it, let alone his small radius circle strafing at the end of the film. I'm pretty skeptical about the ability of anything driven by nose-mounted propellers to vector thrust.

Technology available during the 1940's

It looks like WWII, it quacks like WWII, so anything that couldn't have been built during WWII must be an inconsistency, right? Who's to say that this was set during WWII?

Who's to say that this thing is even set on Earth as we currently know it? I challenge you to identify where in Europe the big raid by Rostock took place. They fly across a large stretch of water, to bomb what looks like an island, but that's not England no matter how you rotate the map.

Sky Crawlers takes place on a modified version of this planet, in a twisted timeline that combines elements of the past, present and future. Big WWII era ground radar installations dot the landscape, but there are aircraft carriers with steam catapults and aircraft with mid-air refueling capabilities, both of which are Cold-War tech. The television at the diner is too thin to be a CRT, but it's still monochrome, and the remote control is attached with wires.

Cars travel in excess of 150 km/h, accelerated growth clones are possible, and streetcars are automated, but the Sanka and Rainbow fighters lack pippers. Nowhere in the film is a date given, and given the variance in technological achievement there's no point in trying to measure historical accuracy.

If anything, the general trend is towards more advanced technology, so why the insistence on close-range combat in what we would call antiquated planes? There is the entertainment factor: missile kills are perceived as "easier" than gun kills. But there is a very compelling case to be made for cost control. Clones are cheap, jet engines are not. Putting radar, fire control, and a bunch of BVR missiles on this plane with jet engines is definitely not.

At the end of the day, the corporations only have to put on a show without any substance, kind of like the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Can all this stuff be built, today? Yes, except instantly aged to perfection clones. This is, really, the only element where you should have to deploy your suspension of disbelief. The J-Zwei could simply be made to out climb, out run, and out turn the Sanka, and this would be a much more convincing proposition than thrust vectoring on a single engine. On balance, it's a fault I can live with, if only because the suspension is not seriously taxed, which is a Good Thing(TM).