We have for two years watched with great anticipation the filming at Abingdon, Bovingdon and numerous other locations, the impressive bespoke sets, the full size replica aircraft, not to mention the use of genuine B-17’s and Mustangs. It has been a huge and expensive enterprise, but at last, release is due in month or so.
The ‘teaser’ trailer is out, and what can one say ? ‘Oh dear’ is the first reaction. If you were hoping for the gritty realism of ‘Saving Private Ryan’, for instance, then forget it. It appears to be yet another aviation-centric production that has been trashed by computer-game standard CGI. The clunky ‘Red Tails’ was released about ten years ago, and really, this shows all the same flaws, such as massive formations of aircraft which look like wall-paper, nothing moves, not to mention enemy aircraft screaming in at Mach 5 . Seriously, has CGI not got any more convincing in ten years? The frustrating thing is not that modern cgi is bad, it is that the producers refuse to use it in a manner which could realistically portray WW2 aircraft in flight.
If ever there was an opportunity and budget to create something really impressive this was it, but frankly, I think they have blown it…
By: MN138 - 12th December 2023 at 15:14
There seems a variation in the quality of the CGI used in the 2 trailers seen. I can’t proclaim to be an expert on VFX, but more knowledgeable people online have speculated that the trailer has been produced with digital effects in various stages of production. We’ll see in January I guess.
As MoTA shares a number of the big production staff as Band of Brothers and The Pacific, I very much doubt they won’t be as gritty and realistic as possible.
By: J Boyle - 11th December 2023 at 03:13
I am underwhelmed by the apparent quality of the CGI. I saw better in a recent low budget Japanese production about the battleship Yamato.
About bomber aerial combat scenes…I haven’t flown combat in a bomber and my father is no longer around to ask, so I’m kind of asking a question…but I don’t think the attacks would have been that shockingly sudden (which is what impressed me in “Dunkirk’s” aerial action versus the aerial ballet scenes in “Battle of Britain”) like fighter vs. fighter combat is often described.
I would also note that previous films and TV episodes (which were filmed when members of the original cast were still with us…and who we presume provided some input to film makers) have never shown fighter vs. bomber combat that way. If all else fails, watch the documentary, Memphis Bell.
However in defense of what has been released, we MIGHT be seeing a heavily edited version, very quick shots (like a war game advert) to ramp up the action in the trailer (Apparently, action film fans have short attention spans so no shot lasts longer than two seconds).
I hope so, I couldn’t take that much frantic editing/action/battles 🙂
In short, I’ll agree with MFowler….at this late date, just about anything which tells the story of the war is going to be a good thing. Will it be perfect, no, but anything which will educate future generations about the bravery of those men is welcome.
By: MFowler - 10th December 2023 at 19:59
I guess I’m past the nit-picking stage of my life … to me, ANY WWII movie is going to be good,and enjoyable, on some and possibly even many levels. I have learned that to maximize the enjoyment, before I go into the theater or fire up the laptop, I have to consciously “switch off” the history buff/accuracy is everything parts of my brain. It makes a real difference in how I feel after the show is over.
By: Prop Strike - 10th December 2023 at 19:17
You are right to withhold opinion until we see more of the finished product, and I really would like to like it, but the initial impression is not very positive, primarily due to the CGI. Of course, with just 5 airworthy Fortresses now, there is not the opportunity to have massed formations of real aircraft, Battle of Britain (film) style, and so CGI is inevitably going to play a part, but the disappointing thing is that it is rather badly done, and looks very like ‘shoot ’em up’ games such as War Thunder. There is now the technology to do it really well, but it has to be used to configure the sequences as though they were filmed, rather than created.
Maybe the narrative will be so compelling that the CGI ceases to be a distraction.
By: Southern Air99 - 10th December 2023 at 11:46
Ok, for balance:
I think it’s unfair to judge a series based on a couple of clips in a teaser, or even main trailer, that are probably not at the resolution/technical specs they’ll be shown in on release.
I am sure you’re intelligent enough to know about relative speeds, perspective, etc; so to a crew sat in a bomber formation at constant speed, enemy aircraft might appear to be ‘screaming in at mach 5’ – a lot of those shots you mention are shown from the POV of the Fort crew and yes probably have been exaggerated to give a sense of that point of view, the suddenness of being attacked.
The comments about formations looking like wall paper with nothing moving are again a bit generalising – in constant formation flight, aircraft do seem to ‘hang in the air’ in position, you see that at times even in the documentary ‘The Cold Blue’.
At the end of the day, it’s a drama series, scripted by a very excellent writer, with some expert technical crew, and in the absence of enough B17s to create the 100th Bomb Group (especially with the cost/insurance implications), CGI is a viable alternative.
Whilst not perfect by any means (though I think many have the misapprehension it is, and expect as much!) It does offer the chance of an immersive experience, and ‘shooting’ shots that would be challenging in conventional filmmaking.
Sign In
December 9, 2023 at 9:10 pm