British film and the Nightbombers…

RE: my input

As a Scotsman I found it amusing that they used a partly factual Scots based storyline but the lead role was played by an Australian , the movie was filmed in Ireland and funded by the US film industry .What do you think the screen writer would do to a film about the Nightbombing of Germany ??? , probably something stupid like using Vulcans to bomb Peru in the 1930’s !!!!.
Seriously , the bombing of Germany is probably the only theatre of war which has not been covered by a decent (recent ) , films like Target for Tonight , The Dambusters and 633 Squadron are excellent But a film using modern technology to accurately produce a film about the bombing of Germany would be excellent and would give these mostly unsung heroes a decent tribute .
Imagine the BoB Memorial Flight Lanc and the CWH Lanc parked next to Just Jane !!!.

RE: my input

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-09-02 AT 11:14 PM (GMT)]Merlin

I have one real problem with your proposal for a war film to cover the whole war, particularly if it was made in Hollywood.

If the movie “Pearl Harbour” took two hours to cover an attack that lasted about half an hour, how long would a movie covering a six year war take?

Our grandchildren wouldn’t be able to afford the admission costs to see the 9,000,457th episode in 2120.

And I hate watching movies when I can’t last till the end!

Regards

Wombat

my input

Hi guys and girls

I would like to see a film not just about one particular band of men but from every aspect of the war.

We could have a big budget film from hollywood so you could have all the big names in the film and all the special effects you could want.

You could have the germans invading Poland etc etc. Then the air war in europe Dunkirk etc. then the invasion of Pearl and the americans coming on side. While all this is going on Canada and russia etc join in the war. After this the continued assault on france and germany and of course the desert battles and also the western front.

But with all this going on you could cut from allied to axis point of view with starting with a bomb from a allied plane then cutting to how it was for the axis and have them getting in their plane and bombing London then have the civilians point of view and end in sdeath and destruction followed on by a teenagers point of view seeing all the dead and going to join the army whos papers have been called and him in france etc the he shoots a german and then have the german commander point of view at losing a lot of his men and the list goes on and on and on.

A bit like Tora,Tora,Tora when it jumps from side to side.

I think the special effects are better done in hollywood then the are done in a BBC studio. the looked too fake. Well done all the same but as said before the story was weak. The shot of one lanc taxying and the other just taking off was fake as hell but I shouldnt complain elst the wont make anymore and then we will have nothing. But it is a pity Hollywood cant make a good Brit war film its alway American.

I wonder why that is.

Does anyone really think that Hollywood has the stomach for making a war film after September 11th sorry to bring this in to the topic but I think it is a good point. I think that they are scared to make another war film just now incase it is seen in bad taste and is a flop.

What I say is too hell with all the PC just make the films and let us the viewing public decide we will soon let you know if we are happy or not.

RE: PoC

Hi Lancman,
I realise POC is fictional,but to me that isn’t the point.To rack my brains for what me learnded on my englsih lessons at school,one of the points about successful historical fiction is to create an air of authenticity-that the book could be reality if it wasn’t advertised as a novel.This is the feeling I get from Bomber-it seems to be almost a historical account of a raid rather than a fictitious one. I got the feeling from POC that the characters didn’t reflect the real people,and my feet never left the ground,so to speak-I always felt I was reading a novel,and in that sense I don’t mind the book being a bit fancyful.I think though that this partly comes from me having a wider knowledge of the period other than just reading POC.For those who only have PoC to go on,it doesn’t do thier general perception of The Few much good,and this is my main gripe.If you are going to write a novel aimed at the wider public,you should do it in a way that gives an accurate general picture of the people and events,rather than leaving people with the impression that it was common to do away with your CO,steal a squadron mate’s valuables when he snuffs it etc.
As for the TV series,I take my hat off to those who undertook arranging the flying sequences etc for the project.The aerial sequences are some of the best yet,but away from the flying the series for me fails like the book.It seems strange that someone would want to make an adaptation of an already controversial novel,and then twist it further.

RE: PoC

I meant ‘everyone’ except you, Cattermole!!!

RE: PoC

Thanks for the thoughts on PoC, gents.

Ant, not to worry, plenty of folks tell me I’m just a bit of an anorak! (“The late Wing Commander (R) Paul Richey, DFC & bar”, to be absolutely pedantically correct!!)

Now back to British night-bombers … regards all around,

Snoopy

Pardon me Lancman?

>Everyone
>managed to miss the fact that it was a work of FICTION

Extracted verbatim from my post above

“Robinson has a style of writing, it it humorous with black edges, but it is fiction, not fact.”

You were saying?

Moggy

RE: British film … Piece of Cake??

Well, I LOVE the book of POC, and have read it umpteen times, and even proudly own a first edition copy signed by the author, with whom I’ve also corresponded. Everyone managed to miss the fact that it was a work of FICTION-and a bloody well written one at that-which was only based around a framework of real events.

The TV adaptation was adequate, but that’s all. There was way to much in the book to neatly condense it down into 6 neat little episodes, although it was still one hell of a production for it’s time.

Just a few notes for fans of the TV version-

Neil ‘Moggy’ Dudgeon has since been in umpteen TV series, and is extremely successful;

Jeremy ‘Fitz’ Northam is a staple of the costume drama world;

and-

Tom ‘Fanny’ Burlinson (boyfriend of Nicole Kidman in the pre-Tom Cruise days, git!) now makes a living as a TV presenter/Frank Sinatra impersonator down under!

RE: British film … Piece of Cake??

I’m with you on this one Moggy.I enjoyed reading Piece of Cake aswell,but felt the ‘black edge’ to Robinson’s writing and the nature of many of the characters let the book down.Whilst I agree that Robinson didn’t set out to harm the reputation of ‘The Few’,I don’t think it did it much good,but then again without a bit of a bold storyline,a book doesn’t sell.
I think Richey was a Squadron Leader when he wrote/published the book,although I should perhaps have referred to him by his highest rank.Thanks for the correction. 🙂

RE: British film … Piece of Cake??

>Love the book, got the TV movie on video. Prefer the former,
>in fact, must read it again once I finish Propellorhead

As in the book about microlighting? Marvellous, that is! I just read it last month. Very funny. Not sure I’d want to be in the same aircraft though…

RE: British film … Piece of Cake??

I am in little doubt that much of the background research/inspiration for Piece of Cake came from Sqd Ldr Richey’s account of his fighting in France. What better source of background could there be than an account, written down by a participant, at the actual time, unclouded with hindsight or the passing of years?

It has not escaped my notice that there was a Squadron member called ‘Pussy’ featured in Richey’s book who surely formed the model in name, if not in character and flying abilities, for my chosen namesake.

However I also believe that in no way was Robinson’s book an attempt to belittle the courage and achievements of the RAF at that time. Robinson has a style of writing, it it humorous with black edges, but it is fiction, not fact.

I have always suspected that most WW2 fighter pilots would read it as a work of fiction and enjoy it, whilst acknowledging that there is little in it that resembled their experience.

I have some sympathy with Richey though, in that the names of his colleagues, many of whom died, must have been brought back to him by Robinson’s book and it had to be said Hornet Squadron are a shambolic and disreputable crew.

Love the book, got the TV movie on video. Prefer the former, in fact, must read it again once I finish Propellorhead

Moggy

RE: British film … Piece of Cake??

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 18-09-02 AT 09:04 AM (GMT)]>
> …
>
>I couldn’t help noticing your statement about the accuracy
>of Piece of Cake.The book and the TV series were actually
>very controversial, and a copyright lawsuit was even begun
>against Derek Robinson,the author of the book,because it was
>felt that he had copied vast amounts of material from
>Sqn.Ldr Paul Richey’s autobiography ‘Fighter Pilot’.There
>was a strong case on Richey’s side,and the case would
>probably have been won if Sqn Ldr Richey had not passed
>away. The TV series was apparently just as bad,the makers
>recieving a large number of complaints when it was
>shown.It’s worth noticing that it has never been repeated.
>
> …
>

Ant and others:

Sorry for the late participation and the off-topic question, but I’ve previously put questions about “Piece of Cake” a couple of times, here and on the General Discussion board, without response, so please give me some licence:

I know “Piece of Cake” was controversial, both the book and the TV series, but in your opinion, was the problem infringement of copyright (which argues that it was, in fact, pretty accurate), or Derek Robinson’s slightly less-than-uniformly-heroic depiction of the RAF fighter pilots of the time? I’ve read a lot of criticisms of both the book and the TV series, many obviously from veterans who knew what they were talking about, which seemed to me not arguing that Derek Robinson got anything wrong, but just that he was not being sufficiently respectful to the RAF.

I have read the writings of both Wing Commander (I believe that was his last rank, not Squadron Leader) Paul Richey and those of Derek Robinson, and I have a lot of respect for both. For those who’ll forgive my eternal quest for India connections, Wg Cdr Richey served later during WW2 in India, and wrote with respect about the contributions of the fledgeling Indian Air Force in the Burma theatre, so I’m pre-disposed in his favour if anything!! I just wonder if all the criticism of Derek Robinson is justified — some of it has seemed a bit knee-jerk to me.

What do people think? Regards,

Snoopy

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-09-02 AT 06:57 PM (GMT)]

William Wallace wasn’t Australian???

Or isn’t Mel Gibson American?

Regards,

kev35

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

Speaking as a Scotsman, if Mel Gibson does for Bomber Command what he did for William Wallace, LancMans probably got it right!!

KeithMac

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

They bombed us, so we bombed them back. But the Americans went several steps further still with the Japanese-and they’ve made films about that.

If you see a Bomber Command veteran, don’t just buy him a beer-tell him a simple thank you, too. Then buy him another beer, and say thank you again.

God, I can just see a hundred computer-generated B17’s with a Hollywood buffon at the helm, bouncing-bombing a dam to save all of mankind as we know it…

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

Hi ageorge,
I also read the rumours about the ‘Dambusters’ remake.Allegedly, Mel Gibson was interested in doing it,but the plan,if there ever was one,appears to have come to nowt,thankfully IMHO.I’d hate to see the storyline being changed to some Hollywood crowd pulling drivel.There was talk of replacing Gibson’s dog with a Mistress,so you can imagine the twisting of the origianl tail (pun pun!) that would have gone on.It’s interesting that they felt it would be more politically correct to have Gibson ‘playing away from home’ than for him to have a black dog woth a name beginning with N!
As for the political correctness and viewpoint surrounding area bombing,I think it would be possible to illustrate what went on without putting accross a particular judgement,leaving the audience to make up thier own minds.Done well,I reckon it would make people wake up to the efforts,bravery and sacrifice of Bomber Command’s personnel,aswell as the terrible suffering of those on the ground.
To speak personally about this for a tick,I do feel it’s wrong not to have given the Bomber Command folk more recognition,and I also feel that the campaign was one of the lynchpins of victory.That said, area bombing is a distasteful business,and it can be very very difficult for the man in the street not to feel sorry for the people below,no matter what regime they followed.There are always two sides to every story.

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

There was a rumour some time ago that there was a new screenplay/script for “The Dambusters” being hawked around the US film industry , I’m pretty sure I read it in Empire magazine shortly after Pearl Harbor went on general release.

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

I don’t think the issue is about the availability of aeroplanes, or for that matter about a good storyline. It won’t happen because of “political correctness”. There are far too many people out there who believe that bombing is unjustifed and that the wholesale killing of civilians cannot ever be justified even in war. This has been the situation for ages. Sir Arthur Harris and the crews in Bomber Command have never been given the recognition for taking the war to the enemy, when the bomber force was the only force we had which was actually engaged in offensive operations against Nazi Germany. No campaign medal was ever issued for the Bomber offensive, there was opposition to a Bomber Command Memorial and to a statue of Arthur Harris. Sadly the people who hold the view that bombing was wrong have a strong voice in this country. I was posted to Bomber Command in the early 60’s, before it was merged with Fighter Command. Many of the Officers and SNCO’s I served under in those days were veterans of WWII, they were proud men, but many were angry that their efforts had not be recognised properly. I fear it never will. If you see someone wearing a Bomber Command Badge – Buy him a beer, he deserves it! As for a film – I think you will wait forever.

KeithMac

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

I think a very good source for a British Bomber movie would be Jack Currie’s ‘Lancaster Target’-a full tour, with plenty of all sorts of incidents, both in the air and on the ground, to make for a damn good film. It’ll never happen, of course…

RE: British film and the Nightbombers…

>Deighton’s ‘Bomber’ would provide a good basis for a film.

I’ve a problem with this. So much of the interest in Bomber is the way it gets inside its characters’ minds and lets you know what they are thinking that without some pretty clever device to get round this it would become just another bomber mission story. I’d hate the story to be spoilt in the way Memphis Belle, the remake, was by melodramatic devices “Can we crank the u/c down in time?” stuff.

>I suppose the best option would be to follow a
>crew through their tour. However, if they are to complete
>their tour that would probably cover a considerable period
>of time. A Flight Engineer on Lancasters who I know
>completed 31 ops in four and a half months and that was
>considered to be a very quick tour.

This sounds a better idea to me. Could it become a tad repetitive though?

>It would be great to see an epic with the money of ‘Private
>Ryan’ or ‘Pearl Harbour’ spent on it but somehow I can’t see
>it coming anytime soon.

That’s because we aren’t Americans and the Holywood money men and huge audiences aren’t British. 🙁

Moggy