Another movie credit for Sally B

Just googled it was July 21 1996 at Barton, killing the crew, a sad loss of both men and machine

1996, I think?

Apart from this, 633 and Mosquito Squadron, was E-HT in any other films.
Sorry to go off thread.

IIRC E-HT was Ex BAe operated Mosquito RR299 (RIP) and she also appeared strafing a Gestapo security HQ in an episode of ‘Secret Army’ which was the inspiration for the spoof ‘Allo Allo’. Unfortunately the aircraft crashed and was destroyed some years ago, cant remember when though.

Martin

filming

Yes – scanned from a Dutch newspaper which was reporting the filming .
Something dramatic about Sally B trailing smoke – maybe short bursts only considering the price of diesel 😮

Shot of the old gal in action with the Messerarvard

This afternoon (Sep 25th) Boeing B-17G G-BEDF “Sally B” arrived at Groningen Airport Eelde. The aircraft is supposed to take part in a film shoot above Giethoorn tomorrow. Also Harvard N13FY arrived at Eelde in a fake Luftwaffe c/s. The film is “Blackbook” by Paul Verhoeven. More info and photo’s can be found at http://www.geas-web.nl

Is that a scene from the film, I would have thought that any fighter pilot would have considered flying below and behind a burning B-17 rather risky due to the chance of bits falling off or the plane exploding, perhaps he was waiting to shoot up the crew as they bailed out, dastardly Germans.

Fliming again

Shot of the old gal in action with the Messerarvard

This afternoon (Sep 25th) Boeing B-17G G-BEDF “Sally B” arrived at Groningen Airport Eelde. The aircraft is supposed to take part in a film shoot above Giethoorn tomorrow. Also Harvard N13FY arrived at Eelde in a fake Luftwaffe c/s. The film is “Blackbook” by Paul Verhoeven. More info and photo’s can be found at http://www.geas-web.nl

What I was trying to say is as a filmmaker my personal choice would be to make a film I was proud of becuase I knew it was right, and in 30 years time would still be acclaimed as an accurate portrayal;

So it would not be anything like the “Academy Award winner” we discussed last summer then…. :p 😉 😀 http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29880&highlight=Eagles+London

It looks like I’m actually getting this “turkey” from the US. The afficionado’s textbook on not to make a war movie!!!!!

T J

Here’s a great replica to use to shoot down a B17 (near the end of the war at least)

http://www.classic-wings.de/photo/base/cw_html/16_set1.htm

Well yes it would cost a lot to program a simulated aircraft. But realistically if you want or need to do it on the cheap, what is to stop a film company from using an existing CGI program if one is already made?

Dark Blue World did use fully computer generated Buchons for some of its scenes. Not just the match laying. They created whole new cgi versions of the Buchon and the Spitfire.

Surely the files they created for that film must still exist and be held by someone. A film company could probably ask them to use the same program they have on the new film, rather than pay a new guy to create a new file, if you see what I mean.

And alternately if you do have the budget, the advances even since then have made CGI a much more viable option. Some really effective CGI is now being employed in film all the time and you don’t know because you can’t see the seemlessness of it compared with what you used to pick up on, in films like Titanic and that other big sinker, Pearl Harbor.

A good thought there, Dave, but supposing your film-maker wants his CG planes to do something that this “borrowed” version doesn’t? They’d have to start from scratch, and it would probably cost as much to do a new one anyway.

As far as lookalikes and replicas go for war movies, I can bet that Spitfire 26s will turn up at some point – after all, they do look pretty convincing, and would be available at a fraction of the cost of a real one (which, IIRC, was around £4000 PER HOUR for flying work, and £1500 PER DAY for static a few years ago). A half-scale WAR FW190 – maybe for a long shot, perhaps, where the size of the aircraft in relation to the chap flying it wouldn’t be so apparent. I do remember reading that one of the WAR Zero replicas was considered by a TV company for use in a documentary about Pearl Harbor (the attack, not the film), and they even filmed some footage of it before someone found a stack of out-takes from Tora! Tora! Tora! to use instead.

Incidentally, as someone who was asked for assistance in locating aircraft for a Battle of Britain film project (which I think is still in the works), I can remember telling the producer (or director, I can’t be sure) that if he wanted inexpensive aircraft for it, scaled-down replicas were the way to go. I even pointed him in the direction of Christian Engelen in Germany, who makes 3/4 scale Me109 ultralights. Chris was more than happy to be involved, but sadly that came to nought and I think they’re going to use big-scale models instead (last communication I had with the chap had e-mail addresses for several members of the Large Model Association on it).

So, there you go!

Laydees & Gentlemen, may I present, in The Director’s Cut, Dave Homewood’s The Very Few! 😀

Yes, I know what you mean James and I fully understand all that. What I was trying to say is as a filmmaker my personal choice would be to make a film I was proud of becuase I knew it was right, and in 30 years time would still be acclaimed as an accurate portrayal; rather than sell out to the almighty buck and dumb things down, if you know what I mean.

I know people watch films due to ‘names’. Personally I don’t like celebrities that much, unless they are actually good at what they do. Very few of them are. I’d prefer to find very good no-names, they cost less and my film might make them a star too, which would be better for the world at large to have more good stars. I’d rather that than recycling old hacks that are in every war film, or whatever genre it’s in. If the public don’t know the actors, tough.

Sadly almost the entire feature film industry is geared towards the dumbed down, mass audience market however where actors and scripts are constantly recycled – and you will only get funding for a film on those terms from most funding agencies otherwise they see your innovative new ideas as bad risks for their investment, so I doubt I’ll achieve my vision of a good film.

…Saving the world in 1940… hobbits… are you suggesting they want me to direct “The Few”? 🙂

As far as I can remember, 11 Dakota’s were used in ABTF. At the time I was a schoolboy and they were flying all day over our heads. In the weekends we (my entire class) earned small fortunes while being filmed in German uniforms, walking up and down along a road near a canal, the opening scenes of the movie. The daks were at deelen AFB and very off limit at those times.

The B17 and Harvard in the new movie will only be seen in the opening scenes when a B17 is shot down and drops its load on a farmhouse

Look at films from the 1960’s and 70’s. The big name, expensive actors came and went – they’re now as inconsequential as if they’d been a no-name. I can watch an old film with people I’ve never heard of, it does not affect the viewing. Often new faces are btter than tired old stereotypes like John Wayne who were paid much more of the film’s budget. Anyway, regardless of the actors, the glearing innaccuracies still remain after all these decades, and as the world gets wiser they show up more.

People watch films for stories and actors, Dave, not accuracy. Lots of people will cross the road to see Sean Connery in a film, however innacurate it may be. An accurate no-name film isn’t going to be in the same league. If we want to consider ‘big budget’ non-specialist films, then we have to understand the factors and economics – something often entirely ignored here in favour of pedant points.

I’ll be in the queue for the first ‘A Dave Homewood Film’. I do hope it’ll be about how New Zealand saves the world in 1940 using attack hobbits… 😉 Of course, they’ll be accurate attack hobbits, won’t they? 😀

and not only wrong a/c. They would have been two-seat trainers as well…

Just like Harvards 😀

And CGI cost… wait for it… moneey. Sometimes it’s going to cost more than getting a T-6 up.

Well yes it would cost a lot to program a simulated aircraft. But realistically if you want or need to do it on the cheap, what is to stop a film company from using an existing CGI program if one is already made?

Dark Blue World did use fully computer generated Buchons for some of its scenes. Not just the match laying. They created whole new cgi versions of the Buchon and the Spitfire.

Surely the files they created for that film must still exist and be held by someone. A film company could probably ask them to use the same program they have on the new film, rather than pay a new guy to create a new file, if you see what I mean.

And alternately if you do have the budget, the advances even since then have made CGI a much more viable option. Some really effective CGI is now being employed in film all the time and you don’t know because you can’t see the seemlessness of it compared with what you used to pick up on, in films like Titanic and that other big sinker, Pearl Harbor.

Well I did realise the difference in costs between a Harvard and a fighter, both in fillng the tank and hiring the aircraft. Yes, that’s always a consideration. Personally if I were the filmmaker – and someday soon I hope to be – I would go for cheaper actors in order to afford better accuracy.

Look at films from the 1960’s and 70’s. The big name, expensive actors came and went – they’re now as inconsequential as if they’d been a no-name. I can watch an old film with people I’ve never heard of, it does not affect the viewing. Often new faces are btter than tired old stereotypes like John Wayne who were paid much more of the film’s budget. Anyway, regardless of the actors, the glearing innaccuracies still remain after all these decades, and as the world gets wiser they show up more.

I’m not saying that then it was the fault of filmmakers that they had to use Harvards for everything back then. I understand the conditions they were under. But there has been a warbird revolution. There are now all sorts of types flying around the world, real, look-alike (aka Buchon) and replica (there’s plenty of replica FW190’s flying that would look right in air combat filming).

I just think that today there are so many more options, and filmmakers can chose to make a good job of their film, or they can chose to go down the tired old route of hoping for the best.

This particular film has done a great thing in using a B17 rather than tarting up a DC3 or something. I am not trying to diss the filmmaker, and I realise that as it’s a European film it won’t have the huge budget of Hollywood. So money is an issue of course. It is great that the film is getting made at all.

I am merely speaking in general with my comments that it does seem odd and outdated to paint up a Harvard. But as you say, the avergae viewer won’t know the difference. And I fear that often the average filmmaker doesn’t know or care either. Perhaps that’s why some of them produce average films?

The good thing about CGI is that you can make almost anything “come back to life” again! Unfortunately, you can see its not real! But then again, movies aren’t real now, are they…

And CGI cost… wait for it… moneey. Sometimes it’s going to cost more than getting a T-6 up. Good point though TJ.

The Furies would have had to be the German DLB target tugs, and not only wrong a/c.

…and never were used in a film, IIRC.

How many Dakotas were used for the movie, and where did they come from?

I don’t have the facts to hand but about seven, and they came from 4 or 5 different countries. The replica (static, grounded) Horsas were very effectively filmed.

The FockeFury was for an advert I think…

Hi Pete,
It’s kind of easy to say ‘they should use something else’ but all the critical posts seem to overlook real as opposed to notional availability, qualified pilots, location, and most importantly, cost. Films are made to a budget. It’s easy to spot the posts made above by folks who’ve never chosen between paying to fill a T-6 fuel tank and that of a V-12 fighter or a Sea Fury!

Today they use CGI, back then a T-6 as a fighter. Even a Soko trainer in a movie about Tito in Yugoslavia starring Richard Burton! The good thing about CGI is that you can make almost anything “come back to life” again! Unfortunately, you can see its not real! But then again, movies aren’t real now, are they…

Bridge too Far was primarily a land war / air-landing film. If they have been able to get a Sea Fury (where from?) exactly how much better would it have looked? It’s still the wrong aircraft at several times the cost, and you’ve got one, not 4! Having Dakotas dropping round chutes (a major task – due to the multi-national nature of the dropping aircraft and their mod states – that never occourred to most enthusiasts) was a lot more important than getting the generic fighters right. Incidentally they were playing as Thunderbolts and Fw190s too! 😀

The Furies would have had to be the German DLB target tugs, and not only wrong a/c. They would have been two-seat trainers as well… 😮 😉 How many Dakotas were used for the movie, and where did they come from?

Speaking of Furies. The “Fockefury” at Duxford back in time, which movie was it used in?

T J

Note for enthusiasts: Most of the viewing public can tell the difference between a jet and a prop aircraft only on a good day. As they say, Deal with it. 😉

Fair point… I can’t help shouting ‘at least put a different canopy on it!’ at the screen sometimes though – but I’m sure that would cost as much as running the plane in the first place. Hence my earlier point about CGI modifications. Ho hum. But great to see Sally B flying again and starring in yet another film.

Somewhere, there’s a lot of money to be made for someone operating a fleet of 4/5 scale wooden light aircraft or car engined Spits, 109s and FW190s.

I think the Harvard looks naff, I’ve never forgiven the film companies for using them as Typhoons/Tempests in A Bridge too Far when Sea Furies must have been available.
Similarly they were used in Das Boot for various scenes when I’m sure something else must have been available, wasn’t E-HT around then for the last scene, it featured in Land Girls, was that it’s last film appearance?

Hi Pete,
It’s kind of easy to say ‘they should use something else’ but all the critical posts seem to overlook real as opposed to notional availability, qualified pilots, location, and most importantly, cost. Films are made to a budget. It’s easy to spot the posts made above by folks who’ve never chosen between paying to fill a T-6 fuel tank and that of a V-12 fighter or a Sea Fury!

Bridge too Far was primarily a land war / air-landing film. If they have been able to get a Sea Fury (where from?) exactly how much better would it have looked? It’s still the wrong aircraft at several times the cost, and you’ve got one, not 4! Having Dakotas dropping round chutes (a major task – due to the multi-national nature of the dropping aircraft and their mod states – that never occourred to most enthusiasts) was a lot more important than getting the generic fighters right. Incidentally they were playing as Thunderbolts and Fw190s too! 😀

Note for enthusiasts: Most of the viewing public can tell the difference between a jet and a prop aircraft only on a good day. As they say, Deal with it. 😉

[QUOTE=DazDaMan]E-HT? :confused: The only warbirds I remember seeing in that film were MH434 and Black 6.

Sorry, must have got the wrong film, the one I’m thinking about involved Italian POW’s set in Scotland, I remember seeing a fantastic view of E-HT flying in from the sea and clearing the cliffs, anyone remember which film this was, or was it just a TV play.
Apart from this, 633 and Mosquito Squadron, was E-HT in any other films.
Sorry to go off thread.