Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss

OK, I’m going to display my chronic ignorance here – what outtakes are these and who are the ‘Dark Blue World crew’?

Battle of Britain is another film that might profit from some CGI magic, think of seeing the He111s and Bf109s with DB engines! We could do with modifying the long noses and double rads of the Spitfire IXs and XVIs too!

The ‘stuka’ scene is very obviously modelwork, perhaps we could even get some new air combat sequences now that so many Hurricanes are in airworthy condition – but that is probably far, far too much to hope for!

THE outtakes – there must be a cubic arseload of them in the MGM vaults, and I reckon we’ve probably only seen about 20% of them!!

The effects team can be found at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244479/fullcredits

*EDIT
Sorry, I’ll elaborate. The film crew shot many hundreds of hours of footage involving the aircraft, both in the air and on the ground. I think possibly only 40 MINUTES of that ended up in the finished version of the movie!!

Another example is the improvements made to BofB outtakes by the Dark Blue World crew – ref the prop flying off the exploding Heinkel, the cascade of empty cartridge cases that the camera flies ‘through’…

OK, I’m going to display my chronic ignorance here – what outtakes are these and who are the ‘Dark Blue World crew’?

Battle of Britain is another film that might profit from some CGI magic, think of seeing the He111s and Bf109s with DB engines! We could do with modifying the long noses and double rads of the Spitfire IXs and XVIs too!

The ‘stuka’ scene is very obviously modelwork, perhaps we could even get some new air combat sequences now that so many Hurricanes are in airworthy condition – but that is probably far, far too much to hope for!

If the actors performances are left unchanged and the CGI followsthe original shots closely I don’t see why a new version that’s deeply respectful of the original shouldn’t be a success.

As long as it’s made respectfully, I agree. I am generally suspicious of the film industry though and if the idea was proven to be a runner what changes wouldn’t Hollywood make to certain classics that would make them more palatable or attractive to their key audiences??

But I’m getting off topic… I think the potential is definitely there, look at the Star Wars special editions which show what can be done when older sfx are revisited (the good bits, there’s still plenty that’s rum) and technology has moved on leaps and bounds even since then. Another example is the improvements made to BofB outtakes by the Dark Blue World crew – ref the prop flying off the exploding Heinkel, the cascade of empty cartridge cases that the camera flies ‘through’…

I admit to having antithetical thoughts about this… at what point does it stop being some subtle improvements and start becoming mucking about with a classic?

If the actors performances are left unchanged and the CGI followsthe original shots closely I don’t see why a new version that’s deeply respectful of the original shouldn’t be a success.

An interesting idea! Some of the”Dr Who” DVDs have been released with a “Special Features” option of viewing some of the creaky models shots re-done with modern CGI e.g. “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” and “The Ark in Space”.

Colin

I admit to having antithetical thoughts about this… at what point does it stop being some subtle improvements and start becoming mucking about with a classic? On balance though, I’d rather see a technically improved Tora Tora Tora than Pearl Harbor…

I’d be interested to see the Dr. Who stuff.

One idea I´d suggest for some of the classics like ‘Sink the Bismark’ and ‘The Dambusters’ is to keep the live action but re-do the special effects. Some of the model work makes old movies looks a bit creaky but replace it with modern CGI and you would have a much more accesible film while preserving the performances of the actors from the original.

An interesting idea! Some of the”Dr Who” DVDs have been released with a “Special Features” option of viewing some of the creaky models shots re-done with modern CGI e.g. “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” and “The Ark in Space”.

Colin

One idea I´d suggest for some of the classics like ‘Sink the Bismark’ and ‘The Dambusters’ is to keep the live action but re-do the special effects. Some of the model work makes old movies looks a bit creaky but replace it with modern CGI and you would have a much more accesible film while preserving the performances of the actors from the original.

Should Ambrose have thrown a Brit into it so “younger cinema and TV audiences in Britain may be forgiven for thinking the USA was the only nation to take on Nazi Germany”.

There’s a few Brit’s in ‘Band of Brothers’ like episodes 1,4 and 5 when the 101’st were in Britain before and after D-day and in Holland during Market Garden (and of course Lt Winters, Sgt Martin and other member of Easy were played by British Actors). As for Steven Ambrose, his first book about D-day from the guys on the front line point of view was about a British unit (D Company, Ox’s and Bucks) and the glider assault on Pegasus Bridge. The Band of Brothers book was the result of members of Easy being given free copies of Pegasus Bridge when they gave interviews to the Staff of the US D-Day Museum and suggested to Ambrose that their story would make a good book. (Richard Todd who played Guy Gibson of the original Dambusters film is mentioned in Pegasus Bridge book as he was at the Bridge as a captain in the 7th Parachute brigade on D-Day. 7 Para dropped into the area 30 minutes after the Gliders went in and of course Richard Todd then as an actor played Major John Howard, the CO of D Company in the Film ‘The Longest Day ‘).

And his comment about only British actors is pure rubbish. As was pointed out members of 617 Squadron came from across the commonwealth…and the USA. If a guy can look the part and do an accent why not use him? It might help the film get made or ensure people see it if/when it does come out.

JB has hit the nail right on the head here.

As for the comments on the Sound Barrier (aircraft in the film was the prototype Swift if memory serves) he is right about that one as well (there is a good quote about that one in Chuck Yeager’s autobiography). The first Brit to break MACH 1 was John Derry in a DH108 Swallow and I’m sure that it was the first jet aircraft to do it (abet in a dive and out of control). He may even have been the first guy to do it in an aircraft that had taken off under its own power (I’m not sure when Yeager did the MACH 1 flight from the deck in the X1, with of course was rocket powered). Need less to say of course, the first man to break MACH 1 would have been Eric Brown had it not been for the man who came up with the Spotlight Altimeter cancelling the Miles M52.

Just one point to finish on, what is the link between the TV series Band of Brothers and the DH108 Swallow? Answer: Both made at the same place, the de Havilland plant at Hatfield.

The Production Company, which made ‘Band of Brothers’, used the services of a OAP (Old Age Pensioners) centre in Hatfield to help make the Uniforms for the series. Just before filming started I went to a family wedding reception held in that centre (my mother’s parents were members) and when my grandmother pulled back some curtains to reveal thousands of US army WWII Para uniforms with Screaming Eagle badges on them.

Small World isn’t it.

Agreed! 😀

And let’s keep Speilberg away…he’ll have a cute little kid stow away and take over the controls at the last minute when Gibson is wounded (attacked by the Labrador?).

Yes, Spielberg will no doubt throw his ‘absentee father’ fixation into the proceedings, cue much handwringing from Gibson about his five year old who was strafed by vengeful Me109s while he was away bombing German children, and an increasing moral conundrum about how killing people really makes you feel quite bad.

So long as it’s not Tom Cruise I’ll be happy.

Agreed! 😀

And let’s keep Speilberg away…he’ll have a cute little kid stow away and take over the controls at the last minute when Gibson is wounded (attacked by the Labrador?).

Cheers John. I admit it may not read as clearly as I intended. I was attempting to be sarcastic (is that the word, ironic maybe, not sure) about their research, that’s all.

I hope we can get back to the point now, which I agree with you is accuracy. I’d be happy if the film were accurate and they had Brad Pitt in the lead (though he’s a little old for it, he does a good range of accents). So long as it’s not Tom Cruise I’ll be happy.

“led people to belive a Brit was the first person to survive mach 1?”

Politics mate. Never heard of Roland Beamont? He was a Brit.

He may have been…or some other unknown soul…but Chuck Yeager’s in the history books…

“led people to belive a Brit was the first person to survive mach 1?”

Politics mate. Never heard of Roland Beamont? He was a Brit.

The US viewing market is large yes, but it must be one of the most pathetic in the world when their studios (which lets face it do a lot of market research and know who they are making films for) feel they have to alter history in a historic film to the point where it becomes fiction, even trash, simply to make it more, um, believable to them.

Sorry, Dave..I don’t mean to come acoss as the defender of America….but by adding the statement which I’ve highlighted…the way I read your post, you do seem to be blaming the American public for the choices Hollywood makes. You may not have meant it that way, but that’s the message I received.

And yes, I’m at times defensive about my country…there is a lot of ignorant, biased anti-US sentiment out there. Not all of it deserved.

So this is a potential problem for any “Dambusters” remake. It may only get made with American finance – and the price to pay for this may be American actors in the cast however inaccurate this may be.

Colin

I just read Jonathan Falconer’s guest editorial in the latest FlyPast.
Trying not to sound overly sensitive, he does come across like he is blaming a general ignorance of history by some people on American producers and writers for writing books about Americans in WWII. The books get written and films get made and are popular. So should be blame Spielberg or Ambrose for any misconceptions people have over historical facts of WWII?
“Band of Brothers” was about one American unit. Should Ambrose have thrown a Brit into it so “younger cinema and TV audiences in Britain may be forgiven for thinking the USA was the only nation to take on Nazi Germany”.

And his comment about only British actors is pure rubbish. As was pointed out members of 617 Squadron came from across the commonwealth…and the USA. If a guy can look the part and do an accent why not use him? It might help the film get made or ensure people see it if/when it does come out.
And if i’m not mistaken, I’m sure David frost would like this project to make a profit.
If Shakespeare’s historical dramas can be entrusted to non-UK born actors, I can’t see that Canadians, Australians and the like can’t be trused with playing men flying a Lancaster in the dark of night.

Of course everyone wants the film to be accurate…but it’s time to quit worring about the dog’s name and what passports the actors carry and urge the producers to make the best film they can.

One of the problems facing the makers of any British war epic is that British WW2 films do well in the UK but not very well anywhere else,particularly the USA.

Let me illustrate this point by considering three films – “633 Squadron”,”Battle of Britain” and “A Bridge Too Far”.

Frederick E. Smith’s 1956 novel “633 Squadron” was based on his wartime experiences in the RAF (as an air gunner I think) and was fairly accurate.
However the 1964 film version had a simplified and “Hollywoodised” plot to ensure success at the US box office. In particular the British Wing Commander Roy Grenville became Ex – Eagle Squadron American pilot Roy Grant who was played by Cliff Robertson ,then the Brad Pitt of his day following his starring role in “PT -109”. Erik Bergman was similarly played by the Greek American actor George Chakiris who was also a hot property.

These casting decisions might have annoyed some people but they ensured the film’s success at the US box office.

Five years later the producers of “Battle of Britain” avoided casting any American actors on the grounds of accuracy. The result was that the film was the most successful production at the UK box office that year (and was also a success in W Germany) but it bombed everywhere else and made a big loss for United Artists.

A few years later the producers of “A Bridge Too Far” were forced to emphasise the US role in “Operation Market Garden” to ensure the film’s success.

This illustrates the problem with British war films – to get them made you sometimes have to have Americans in the cast and sometimes a distorted storyline simply to ensure their commerical success.

Mention was made earlier of “Thunderbirds”. All these Gerry Anderson productions were made in the UK but they tended to feature American voice artists (and later American actors) simply to make sure they would sell in the USA. This was the same reason that every episode of Brian Clemens “Thriller” always featured at least one American actor.

So this is a potential problem for any “Dambusters” remake. It may only get made with American finance – and the price to pay for this may be American actors in the cast however inaccurate this may be.

Colin

But as already related, there were one or two (maybe more?) of Gibson’s men who were American.

One of the problems facing the makers of any British war epic is that British WW2 films do well in the UK but not very well anywhere else,particularly the USA.

Let me illustrate this point by considering three films – “633 Squadron”,”Battle of Britain” and “A Bridge Too Far”.

Frederick E. Smith’s 1956 novel “633 Squadron” was based on his wartime experiences in the RAF (as an air gunner I think) and was fairly accurate.
However the 1964 film version had a simplified and “Hollywoodised” plot to ensure success at the US box office. In particular the British Wing Commander Roy Grenville became Ex – Eagle Squadron American pilot Roy Grant who was played by Cliff Robertson ,then the Brad Pitt of his day following his starring role in “PT -109”. Erik Bergman was similarly played by the Greek American actor George Chakiris who was also a hot property.

These casting decisions might have annoyed some people but they ensured the film’s success at the US box office.

Five years later the producers of “Battle of Britain” avoided casting any American actors on the grounds of accuracy. The result was that the film was the most successful production at the UK box office that year (and was also a success in W Germany) but it bombed everywhere else and made a big loss for United Artists.

A few years later the producers of “A Bridge Too Far” were forced to emphasise the US role in “Operation Market Garden” to ensure the film’s success.

This illustrates the problem with British war films – to get them made you sometimes have to have Americans in the cast and sometimes a distorted storyline simply to ensure their commerical success.

Mention was made earlier of “Thunderbirds”. All these Gerry Anderson productions were made in the UK but they tended to feature American voice artists (and later American actors) simply to make sure they would sell in the USA. This was the same reason that every episode of Brian Clemens “Thriller” always featured at least one American actor.

So this is a potential problem for any “Dambusters” remake. It may only get made with American finance – and the price to pay for this may be American actors in the cast however inaccurate this may be.

Colin

John, you are clearly the one who needs to chill mate.

Dave…
Another outburst?

Er, actually no. Just a simple comment.

As we’ve discussed before.. “Hollywood” does not represent the official position of the US Government or the people of the United States.

Where did I say it does? To reword what I said, making it simpler so you can keep up, film companies do vast amounts of market research and supposedly think they know the target audience and what they want. My comment was that they think the people of the USA don’t care if history is twisted, embellished and faked. Sorry, it must be a language barrier, but I think you misinterpretted me. I was commenting on the studios, not the people.

Last I heard, “Hollywood” people say they make more money from foreign markets than America

Well it is obvious that they would. When it’s America’s viewing population versus the movie going public of the rest of the world, there will be much more money in foreign sales for many reasons. These include the fact that the Hollywood film industry dominates the world distribution industry. It has the biggest market share in most English speaking countries and many more besides. The studios also own the promotional tools such as film magazines, newspapers, and of course the cinema complexes themselves. Then there are aftermarket sales such as video rentals, merchandise and DVD sales. Many big budget films do not break even at the box office these days, but make their millions later in rentals and DVD sales.

Local film industries in countries foreign to your own are somewhat smothered by US input. Whether that’s good or bad or whatever does not matter, it’s certainly going to be good for Hollywood. Even big studios like Universal when based in Europe (as it used to be for a while) is still thought of as a “Hollywood” studio. That’s where their money comes from and goes to. Hollywood is not a place where films are made, it is a bank for financing films and studio owner’s dreams.

Our NZ own film industry can make films written by, acted by and made by Kiwis, but to be a success worldwide it has to rely on Hollywood input, ie money, in order to get it’s films out to Hollywood owned cinema chains. Smaller films may not need their money to get made, it’s all in getting screened that Hollywood comes in. That’s why so many NZ films now go to, and many win, big film festivals, so a Hollywood studio will buy distribution rights.

Basically, Hollywood has the world industry pretty much sewn up and eating out of the palms of their hands. They are like that simply because they are the ones who thoguht of it first. Good on them, I have no problem with that.

So, you’ll see why a Hollywood film makes more overseas? Because maybe 60 countries or more show it in Hollywood-owned cinemas, and they run publicity in Hollywood conglomerate (like Newsgroup) owned publications, and then there’s the rental market and DVD sales, all filtering back to Hollywood. Simple economics. Hollywood is a bank with global interests.

The film industry “(generically known as “Hollywood”) is out to make a buck (and pound, peso, yen and euro) so they are going to add love interests in films.

Fine if it’s fiction or whatever. But in a film purporting to be a true story, if the love interest is untrue and out of historical context. it’s totally unnecessary. Not everything in life revolves around getting your end away.

Remember not everyone is an aviation history buff.

I know that. I also know not everyone likes chick flicks either. If a film is being made about aviation history, it does not need to be turned into a chick flick too to get the women watching. Most have enough sense to watch a true story with their husbands, boyfriends etc or whatever and enjoy it for what it is, without embellishing it with some sideline love story for the ladies. If there are women who don’t have that capability, there’s plenty more romance films for them to watch (and the money still goes to Hollywood either way, maybe moreso if it means getting two DVD’s out of the shop!).

If they were, FlyPast would outsell The Sun, What Car?, Radio Times or Sheep Farmer Weekly (or whatever is the best selling magazine in NZ).

FlyPast does outsell those here. It’s the only one you mention available in this country as it happens.

The American people are not as stupid as you (and Hollywood) seem to believe they are…

I did not say they were stupid. Maybe it did not come over well but I was actually commenting on the fact that Hollywood thinks they know their audience. I beg to differ with them.

for every U-518 I can point to films where America is distorted historically…

If you refer to the U-571 debate I have no problem with that film. It’s fiction, pure and simple. Not meant to be true. It’s like an Alastair MacLean book/film. Good fun action film. I like it.

However regarding British films slighting US History, maybe so. You’re right. Not my problem.

I have seen a lot of American things that distort US history too, in films, and on TV. Things like forever stating Christopher Columbus was the man who discovered Amerca. What utter rubbish.

True, many films of a historical nature do change facts to suit them. It doesn’t matter where they are from, it happens. My stance is it doesn’t need to. I have studied this indepth and those films that get it right all the way are usually a heap better than those that make up subplots, fake romances, made-up characters and the likes.

Also remember that it was a US studio that bankrolled “The Battle of Britian” with nary a yank in sight. And American studios bankrolled the pro-UK epic, “Master & Commander” where a NZ-born man played a Captain in the RN….and it was an Australian director who decided to make the enemy ship French instead of American…as it was in the real incident O’Brien based his book on (since the book series is largly about the Napoleonic Wars, he didn’t see the need to switch the focus of the film to what we call The War of 1812).
And don’t forget all the pro-UK films made in the US prior to America entering WWII…to build public support for the US entering the war.

As I stated above, Hollywood is a bank. That’s what it’s for. It does not make it an American movie if Americans paid for it and it’s made wholly by Brits, or kiwis or whoever. It just makes it US-funded. I consider Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, the Indiana Jones films, the first three Star Wars films as British productions. They had mostly British crews, used British studios and locations, and largely British cast for the large part. They are US-funded British productions, with US directors. But dubbed “Hollywood-made” because the fatcats with the wallets associate themselves with that Californian town.

Remember too, it was UK producers (after US dollars I suspect) who cast Americans in 633 Squadron and the Great Jimmey Stewart film “No Highway in the Sky” and countless other films and TV series. (Gee, even the puppets in “Thunderbirds” were American…albeit with bad accents). Yes, they (Hollywood”) did imply that a well known British-designed, built, crewed and operated ocean liner sank in 1912…but I’m sure they didn’t reallly mean anything by it.

This is another thing that happens, and because of what I said above. In order to get your locally made story into worldwide distribution to make a bit of money back off it, you often have to cast American/Canadian actors in the leads simply to persuade the Hollywood machine to allow the film to be shown in their worldwide cinema distribution network. Simple as that. We’ve had many good films made here with NZ cast you that most countries will never have heard of. But our films with US leads you will have.

I don’t know if the UK public howled at the time about these casting decisions, but you seem to take every film as a personal slight to the Empire.

Me? I don’t give a toss mate. Where’d you get that from? I haven’t uttered anything about US casting on this thread have I? If I did it would be in light of maintaining historical accuracy only. Not because you think I hate your country. Sheesh!

To put it plainly…we Americans are smart enough to understand that “The Lord of the Rings” is NOT about your country….there are, I believe no trolls and elves there. WE KNOW IT’S JUST A FILM!

Well I’m very glad you’ve got that worked out. Thanks for sharing :rolleyes: :confused: :confused:

I understand if being from a small country you feel the need to verbally attack and belittle a larger one…but before you go off on another rant, please for your own sake, do as they do in Hollywood: get some therapy and chill. Dude. :D[/QUOTE]

You have to be one of the strangest people on this forum, I must say. When you’re talking aviation you’re a very interesting chap. When anyone mentions the slightest thing negative towards the USA you jump on the highest horse possible and start ranting about anti-Americanism and slighting people left, right and centre. Can you not simply put your over-protective nationalistic ferver aside for a moment, realise that not everything said against Hollywood is an attack on you and your country, and actually debate the issues at hand in a rational way?

You’re an intelligent man, so i hope you can.

…The US viewing market is large yes, but it must be one of the most pathetic in the world when their studios (which lets face it do a lot of market research and know who they are making films for) feel they have to alter history in a historic film to the point where it becomes fiction, even trash, simply to make it more, um, believable to them. Hmm. I expect some backlash to this statement from US posters.

Dave…
Another outburst?
As we’ve discussed before.. “Hollywood” does not represent the official position of the US Government or the people of the United States.

Last I heard, “Hollywood” people say they make more money from foreign markets than America…especially for “action” films. (What else would account for the recent Jackie Chan remake of “Around the World in 80 Days”?). The film industry “(generically known as “Hollywood”) is out to make a buck (and pound, peso, yen and euro) so they are going to add love interests in films. Remember not everyone is an aviation history buff.
If they were, FlyPast would outsell The Sun, What Car?, Radio Times or Sheep Farmer Weekly (or whatever is the best selling magazine in NZ).

The American people are not as stupid as you (and Hollywood) seem to believe they are…for every U-518 I can point to films where America is distorted historically…remember “Breaking the Sound Barrier” that led people to belive a Brit was the first person to survive mach 1? Or the UK produced Merchant-Ivory film “Jefferson in Paris” that made him out to be a bumpkin…while in fact he spoke fluent French like most learned men of the day.

Also remember that it was a US studio that bankrolled “The Battle of Britian” with nary a yank in sight. And American studios bankrolled the pro-UK epic, “Master & Commander” where a NZ-born man played a Captain in the RN….and it was an Australian director who decided to make the enemy ship French instead of American…as it was in the real incident O’Brien based his book on (since the book series is largly about the Napoleonic Wars, he didn’t see the need to switch the focus of the film to what we call The War of 1812).
And don’t forget all the pro-UK films made in the US prior to America entering WWII…to build public support for the US entering the war.

Remember too, it was UK producers (after US dollars I suspect) who cast Americans in 633 Squadron and the Great Jimmey Stewart film “No Highway in the Sky” and countless other films and TV series. (Gee, even the puppets in “Thunderbirds” were American…albeit with bad accents). Yes, they (Hollywood”) did imply that a well known British-designed, built, crewed and operated ocean liner sank in 1912…but I’m sure they didn’t reallly mean anything by it.

I don’t know if the UK public howled at the time about these casting decisions, but you seem to take every film as a personal slight to the Empire.

To put it plainly…we Americans are smart enough to understand that “The Lord of the Rings” is NOT about your country….there are, I believe no trolls and elves there. WE KNOW IT’S JUST A FILM!

I understand if being from a small country you feel the need to verbally attack and belittle a larger one…but before you go off on another rant, please for your own sake, do as they do in Hollywood: get some therapy and chill. Dude. 😀

The US viewing market is large yes, but it must be one of the most pathetic in the world when their studios (which lets face it do a lot of market research and know who they are making films for) feel they have to alter history in a historic film to the point where it becomes fiction, even trash, simply to make it more, um, believable to them. Hmm. I expect some backlash to this statement from US posters, but you are not the mass viewing market films are made for. You are the ones who do know and care about history enough to be discussing it here. I’m sure you’d rather see the truth as much as I, rather than extra explosions, love triangles and all the other attachments to “true” stories too. It cannot be just the filmmakers’ to blame, it’s society I believe.

I agree Dave I tried to make this point earlier in the thread but ended up wording it wrong and got accused of being xenophobic. you only have to look at past films (U571 springs to mind where this has happened) where this has happened