botched-up archival footage in "documentaries" etc.

My big bugbear is sound.

A lot of pre-war and wartime film was shot as silent.

How often have we seen images of massed formations of merlin engined aircraft overlaid with that buzzsaw noise which I think emanates from pre-war Grummans.

Moggy

As underwater wreck exploration is another love of mine after WW2 aircraft, I’ll also step in here to say that ‘James Cameron’s Expedition Bismarck’ is a superb documentary programme, very moving and revealing, and is not to be confused with the more usual ‘documentary’ fare that gets churned out on TV these days. Given the extreme quality of the wreck exploration done, I can forgive the odd little bit of shoddy archive research!

If Cameron could get his weaponry so right for Saving Private Ryan, it is disappointing to think that his doco on the Bismark was so poor.

Steven Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan.

It really p******s me off

I guess I’m one of those .01% who notice when things are wrong, and there has always been one trend in war films which really gives me the tomt…s.

That is where a dogfight scene, or an aircraft involved in a strafing scene, changes from one type to another, particularly during close-ups. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen Captain Clod pouring lead into a Zero or 109, and he changes his plane from a P-51, to a Spit, to a close-up of a P-47 (the scene with the six .50’s protruding from the wing, with the inner gun protruding slightly further than the centre one, and the outer one further recessed into the wing – I’m sure we’ve all seen that shot. Then, just to get more mileage out of the same scene, it’s played in the obverse, so the aircraft is flying in the opposite direction.

To me, this is just sloppy and displays a total lack of concern for the accuracy of the film. Surely the enthusiasts amongst us number in the many thousands, and form a not insignificant proportion of movie goers. If Cameron could get his weaponry so right for Saving Private Ryan, it is disappointing to think that his doco on the Bismark was so poor. (I haven’t seen it, as I don’t have cable tv, and many of the doco’s shown in the UK don’t seem to get an airing out here.

Regards

Wombat

I guess referring to footage often repeated, it all comes down to costs. Some archives housing rarer film stock will charge an arm and a leg for their stock footage. A lot of doco makers will go for the cheapest option I’m afraid, which is usually the piece of stock footage seen over and over.

An example of ridiculous costs, I read that for any news maker or documentary maker wishing to use the footage that TVNZ took of the Americas Cup races within NZ a few years back it will cost $200 per second. If an archive thinks they have something rare and usable, they sometimes feel they can charge like a raging bull for the privilege of using it.

Hi All,

I’ve just watched the documentary of the Mosquito raid on Amiens Prison & there was an assortment of different Mosquitoes, Bostons & even a Fairy Battle crept in ???? Some of the facts were slightly dubious, too. Still there was some good Mossie footage that I hadn’t seen before, so that’s gotta be good!

Happy New Year to All,
Neilly

One thing that bothers me is that nearly every documentary about daylight bombing during WW2 uses the colour footage from the original Memphis Belle documentary. On ITV years ago there was a 50 minute program about bombers and nearly 15 minutes of it was just the Memphis Belle footage with a different voice over! There must be hundreds of hours of footage taken by the USAAF, but TV companies seem content with reusing the same footage time and again.

sorry, I must be one of the 99.9%…what is the BoB “doorbell” incident you refer to? Is it (as I assume) the use of a doorbell sound effect when none historically should be there, or the wrong type?

cheers

greg v

They are going on about when one of the pilots come out of a house that there is an electric doorbell push on the door frame and it shouldnt be there!!! :rolleyes:

What they should remember are that these films are made for entertainment value not as full blown historical reference works :p Although some historical works do leave at lot to be desired!!

A225HVY

hello Colin

sorry, I must be one of the 99.9%…what is the BoB “doorbell” incident you refer to? Is it (as I assume) the use of a doorbell sound effect when none historically should be there, or the wrong type?

cheers

greg v

The problem is some of the people producing these programmes cant tell the difference between a spitfire and a Lancaster !!! It can be annoying but to most of the viewing public it makes no differance anyway. just like the Door bell in the BoB film, we notice 99.9% do not and if you point it out they do not really care.
We advised on a War film a few years back and they were going to paint a jet fuselage to represent a German WWII fighter which I am so glad they decided not to do.

I notice them also, how about the pre war unglazed He 111 bombing London – or the Il -2 (in daylight) attacking British night bombers over Germany, or the Dakota crashing at Arnhem (in daylight) used as a 4 engined night bomber being shot down etc, etc. Not to mention the naval and land forces **** ups too!
I have written to the TV stations on numerous occasions, they seem to think that saying they didn’t produce it – merely bought it – absolves them from the erroneous content. I did enquire why they didn’t even look at what they were buying but got no response.
I offered to sell them my 30 minute original video 😉 of American F16s attacking the Panzer Lehr in 1944, without looking at it first, of course – but this time only they didn’t cough up the money.