The Best Aerial Sequence Never Made

Flying sequences like those in BoB are unlikly to be done again due to the cost and lack of aircraft. Sequences that invole a mix of both are the best way forward if done well.

People can pick films like Pearl Harbour to peices but you can’t get away from the fact there are some great flying sequences involving real planes. (P40 at sunset and Doolitle B25s taking off being my favourites)

The money those owners recieved from the filming keeps them flying, thats what matters!!

Very good points, James.

Good post JDK.

However, with Mr Jackson’s passion for WW1 aircraft, you knew he wasn’t going to make the Helldiver’s cheap and tacky: CGI and Life-Sized.

I’ve seen the 30min long movie about the making of the aerial scenes with the Helldiver. From memory he even had the radial actually running on the mock-up.
Other movie makers wouldn’t have gone to that length of realism.

Ah yes, the CGI debate… again.

A real aircraft will do real things (note, no quotes).

A CGI aircraft and a model on strings will be able to do unrealistic things and or fatal things just as easily as ‘real’ manoeuvres and action.

Given this temptation, so far the (main scenes of aviation, rather than incidental) use of CGI has always resulted in a desire to overplay what an aircraft can do, as well as technical errors of aerodynamics or the basic laws of motion.

If you want to suspend disbelief so far that in aviation the laws of dynamics don’t apply, then they are fine. However, for me, you may as well have the actors walk up walls – the ‘Crouching Tiger’ effect you might say.

CGI and all SFX are ‘improving’ all the time. However this is NOT neccisarily a good thing; as film, rooted in theatre, hasn’t actually changed its core strengths at all. It’s still about a good story well told (or acted).

The desire and capability of film-makes is flat – there is, in theatrical arts, a natural desire to exaggerate and overplay – from actor’s facial expressions to the manoeuvres of aircraft.

The improvements in SFX means that today’s state-of-the-art is tomorrow’s puppets-on-a-string. All movies featuring CGI heavily have major failings in that area when reviewed after a year or so: See ‘Titanic’, ‘Spiderman’ etc, etc.

A ‘great’ movie requires a great story and great acting. The rest is props, smoke and mirrors. Hence the ideas of remaking movies such as ‘Battle of Britain’, ‘Dambusters’ and ‘King Kong’ depend on their potential greatness not on the tricks with props, but the quality of the acting and script. IMHO, a remake of BoB would fail at the box office because the plot and cast is long and large, same as it did in the 60s, and a remake of Dambusters and (as we’ve seen) King Kong will succeed on acting and plot – not on wizzy props. As aviation enthusiasts we focus on, and have high expectation of, the aircraft; but that never drives a blockbusting film, so we’ll always be given whatever the film-maker think the great unwashed will like.

A final thought:
Cars rarely (almost never) explode in a ball of fire when crashed / pushed off a cliff. They are designed to avoid that for very good reasons. We’ve all seen real crashes on the highway. How many caught fire? Yet we *know* through movies and TV that the car *will* explode. Given most audiences *buy* this obvious inconsistency, what chance have we of reality for more esoteric props?

Here’s one of the Helldivers that was on display just before the Movie was opened and then at Hood Aerodrome.

They look even better in the flesh.

None of the above were actually CGI characters though – more like just a tricky bit of photo montage. You´d need to watch something like Final Fantasy to see ahem – “real” CGI characters – but I wouldn´t recommend it!

Yeah, now that you mention it, you’re right, but the principle is almost the same, i.e. bringing dead actors back to life.

None of the above were actually CGI characters though – more like just a tricky bit of photo montage. You´d need to watch something like Final Fantasy to see ahem – “real” CGI characters – but I wouldn´t recommend it!

This has already been partially done with Steve McQeen using the car chase from Bullitt using a Ford Puma and the cast of Happy Days for Citroen cars (I personally prefer the Ford effort).

And for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow – Laurence Olivier.

They also did the same for Brandon Lee in The Crow, after he was accidentally shot and killed on the set.

This has already been partially done with Steve McQeen using the car chase from Bullitt using a Ford Puma and the cast of Happy Days for Citroen cars (I personally prefer the Ford effort).

Me too.

I’ve bought two of them so far.

And I still don’t look as cool as Steve 😮

Moggy

I’m quite convinced that soon we will be able to reproduce exact images of long dead actors/actresses, a chilling thought, this will make a/c scenes a ‘piece of cake’ to produce.

This has already been partially done with Steve McQeen using the car chase from Bullitt using a Ford Puma and the cast of Happy Days for Citroen cars (I personally prefer the Ford effort).

Nice picture DazDaMan, I expect that the great and much missed Ray was flying that sequence.

If I remember rightly, it was Hoof Proudfoot flying the MkI in that scene.

The good and bad points of CGI have already been mentioned. The one thing that hasn’t been mentioned thus far is: MONEY.

Look at how much was flung at King Kong – over $200million. I dunno how much was spent on it, but the CGI throughout the entire movie looked pretty awesome, whether you could tell it was fake or not.

The more people have to spend on their FX, the better they’ll be (or so that should work, anyway. Some of the Pearl Harbor FX are a bit suspect, even compared to a low-budget effort like Dark Blue World!)

I wonder what he’d come up with if that Japanese whizzkid was given a few mill to play with….??

I hope CGI does not completely replace the use of real aircraft in movies. Computer generated aircraft never QUITE look right, although the Helldivers in “King Kong” are an exception. I am however keeping my fingers crossed that the Computer assisted aircraft in the upcoming “Flyboys” doesn’t leave me questioning the authenticity of movement I got from say, “Pearl Harbor” for example.
Also on the subject of Peter Jacksons “Kong” remake I wonder how many of you knew that the movie was originally going to be made before the “Rings” trilogy with a script that opened in 1917 with a gigantic dogfight and ended with the hero attacking the Helldivers in a Sopwith Camel he finds outside a cinema!
As much as I liked the 2005 version, I would have LOVED to have seen that!

Nice picture DazDaMan, I expect that the great and much missed Ray was flying that sequence.
I think that CGI will eventually take us to the point where no-one can tell the difference, the Mossie and Spitfire images previously mentioned and made by the Japanese geek are pretty realistic.
I look back on the Dire Straights MTV video of many years ago, which I believe was one of the first attempts at CGI to represent people, it’s very crude by current standards and compare it to what can be done now. I’m quite convinced that soon we will be able to reproduce exact images of long dead actors/actresses, a chilling thought, this will make a/c scenes a ‘piece of cake’ to produce.
Sorry, distracted, some nutter in a light a/c has decided to view the village at the same level as the church tower, it’s ok, we both survived.

Even with the things you point out BoB is far better than any CGI ‘cartoon’ graphic.

If I want to look at ‘model’ aircraft I’ll get out some of my models and whizz them around on a bit of string.:(

Exactly what the makers of BoB did! And 633 squadron and plenty of others I´m sure. And doesn´t it show – you can see the damn strings half the time!

In fact, if they would have had CGI while making 633 squadron, then they probably wouldn´t have burned those Mossies while making the movie!

I like to see real aircraft in movies as much as anyone, but CGI offers far more flexibility in terms of what you can show, interesting angles, realistic explosions, crashes and so on. I really don´t understand the hostility to it, so long as its well done (which it admittedly often isn´t!). It takes a lot of skill and work to do it right.

Still we live in a world of falling realism standards – TV and most of our political systems have created this situation so why worry about CGI rubbish. 🙁

Errr….wrong forum? :confused:

And of course the wobbly models and scratched on the negative explosions in BoB are just SO much better and more realistic looking – er, NOT! :diablo:

Loved the new King Kong and I love Porco Rosso too! Don´t forget that CGI isn´t really a mature art as yet – its only going to get better.

Even with the things you point out BoB is far better than any CGI ‘cartoon’ graphic.

If I want to look at ‘model’ aircraft I’ll get out some of my models and whizz them around on a bit of string.

Still we live in a world of falling realism standards – TV and most of our political systems have created this situation so why worry about CGI rubbish. 🙁

Next, the scene in ‘Piece of Cake’ where Chris is being chased along the coast and does a hair raising climb and roll over the top of what looks like Beachy Head.

AR213, about to (nearly) give the cameraman a buzz-cut.

Although “Battle of Britain” is one of my favourite movies one thing has always bugged me about the special effects, that is the apparent delay in cause and effect when an aircraft shoots the resulting effect was always too late. This is noticeable in the dogfighting and straffing scenes although when the burning, out of control Spit hits the fuel bowser the resulting explosion was quite clearly too early.

My favourite aerial sequence has to be the opening attack by the ‘Bf-109’s’ at the beginning of the BOB film, that should feature in the ‘how low can you go’ thread.
Next, the scene in ‘Piece of Cake’ where Chris is being chased along the coast and does a hair raising climb and roll over the top of what looks like Beachy Head.
Some of the flying in Tora Tora Tora is pretty amazing as well, especially the airfield attacks.
Also, the take off sequence at the beginning of Catch 22 is pretty cool, along with the scene of Yossarian panicking in the nose of the B-25, never figured out whether this was a genuine air to air shot, it looks like it.
Note, non of this is CGI.

CGI aircraft are just cartoons – and the best cartoon aircraft are in Porco Rosso.

So if I want to watch cartoon aircraft I’ll watch that, but if a film is about flying then I demand real aircraft.

Picky, unreasonable, difficult? perhaps but CGI is just plain fake.

And of course the wobbly models and scratched on the negative explosions in BoB are just SO much better and more realistic looking – er, NOT! :diablo:

Loved the new King Kong and I love Porco Rosso too! Don´t forget that CGI isn´t really a mature art as yet – its only going to get better.

Flight Dynamics in the New Kong film are wrong. The First plane he smashes appears to spin the wrong way on its was down. The remaining wing still should be generating lift so the rotation should be in the opposite direction. The same fault is true with The second Plane he destroys (The one he throws NOT the one it hits (which spins in correctly)) As for the one he throws i’m sure that the sideward forces on the struts that get grabbed would have broken them long before the plane is released.
Sorry for me NOT the best ever sequence.

Fair play, but you have to remember that it’s a film where a giant gorilla kicks dinosaurs up and down the place – ie, fantasy 😉

It worked for 99% of the audience in the end!