New Film: The Few

Don’t forget Ralph Fiennes, too 😉

Ashley – your “Reason:” to edit above. Very funny!

Daz…I don’t care who he plays…I could listen to him recite the telephone directory and still need a bucket of water throwing over me afterwards 😀

…who’ll probably play the token evil, well-dressed, Luftwaffe ace…! 😉

Personally, I find Tom Cruise a bit of a pretty boy…I like my men manly…like Alan Rickman…

~Swoons~

[QUOTE= Michael Mann seems to have a good reputation though I haven’t seen much of his work. [/QUOTE]

And his dad was wartime RCAF.

[QUOTE= And I see that the script is to be based upon a book by Alex Kershaw (has anyone read the book?) so the film may perhaps not stray too much from that, which I assume is based on the facts. [/QUOTE]

And his dad was wartime RAF.

The book hasn’t been written yet. I think you’ll find it to be researched quite thoroughly and accurately. Writer and Director have good intentions, and hopefully can steady the hands of the accountants and bosses.

Hurris AND Spits. The three Americans in 609 were flying Spits.

On thinking about this film a little more, I have a little hope that perhaps good things can come of it. After all Cruise is an aviation enthusiast himself, and a warbird owner. He probably has a sense of the historical angle I hope.

Michael Mann seems to have a good reputation though I haven’t seen much of his work.

And I see that the script is to be based upon a book by Alex Kershaw (has anyone read the book?) so the film may perhaps not stray too much from that, which I assume is based on the facts.

The worrying thing about the writing side is it is being adapted for the screen by a man who also wrote a Star Trek film – YIKES! I hope we won’t see Cruise boldly going where no pilot has gone before – ie into complete fictional nonsense 🙂

But yes Snapper, you’re right – there is hope that it won’t be another of Hollywood’s blunders. It may turn out to be a cracker of a film. I still hope that aviation experts like we here from the forum can try to get along to the flying filming to gently nudge the filmmakers in right directions if they need to.

And I truly hope that the film will use Hurricanes instead of Spitfires – that would make it so much more watchable even if the story is good or bad. Fingers crossed.

I’m looking forward to hearing more info on the film as it comes available, such as who else will be in it, and where it will be made, etc.

Who says its a Hollywood film then?

Gentlemen, we may just see something different to what we are frightened of. It might not just be Fiske. It might be all of the American BoB pilots. Some of whom did contribute to hurting the enemy, flying from here, with the RAF.

There may be as little fiction as is neccesary, and as much faction as possible.

Titanic…

Dan
Personally I found the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch extremely offensive in the pile of cr*p that was Titanic.
Murdoch was a hero that night and many survivors’ testimony told of how he helped survivors into what lifeboats there were. Please also bear in mind being as senior as he was he must have known well in advance that his own chance of survival was slim perhaps says even more for him.
To portray him as a bribe accepting gun-toting murderer of Irishmen is as I said above extremely offensive.
I think you might find that the makers of the film had to give a small apology to his descendants.
I imagine that his behaviour was the way Hollywood moneymen imagine everyone behaves—as they do themselves.
Pity they don’t maker a film about a ship full of useless actors, directors and Hollywood detritus sinking—preferably with no lifeboats at all!
I might actually go and see that.
Until I saw 45 minutes of Pearl’s harbour the other night I sadly imagined film making couldn’t get worse than T*tanic.
All the best
Andy Jones

Pearl Harbor’s biggest mistake….

Was that it called itself Pearl Harbor for one. Saving Private Ryan didn’t call itself D-Day. It never claimed to be the historically accurate account of D-Day. The Longest Day didn’t claim that and it tried to be closer to ‘history’ then Pearl Harbor.

The other HUGE mistake of Pearl Harbor, was putting fictional characters in a position where they were doing the things that real people did. Whether it be the “Yanks in the RAF”, Welch & Taylor getting into the air in their P40s or Doolittle and his raiders.

From Here to Eternity was based around Pearl Harbor, but it never claimed to be “THE STORY” like Pearl Harbor the movie did. It let them put fictional characters in a historical setting.

Even Titanic, regardless of what you think of it, did not have the fictional characters doing anything a real person did on that ship. From what I’d read about Titanic over the years, the film makers did keep the real people’s actions close to the truth as it’s been written over time.

That will be the danger of “The Few”. If it uses the American Billy Fiske, to let people know of the actions of many people, in particular the RAF pilots who fought the battle of Britain, then it has a chance. If it is a fictionalized “based on a true story” type movie, it has no hope, because then you know Fiske will shoot down 25 planes while leading his squadron of Spitfires into action against the Luftwaffe while romancing all the women of England at the same time.

Dan

I heard recently that the launch party for Pearl Harbor cost more than the entire budget of Dark Blue World.

MH

Yep, you’re right Dan. Sorry about that. I did not mean to imply that every audience member is stupid. The way I see it is that no matter what, people still go to see bad films and pay the same amount as they would for a good film – because for many, particularly in the USA, it is a habit to go see the latest movie rather than a discerning choice.

The hollywood machine doesn’t give a toss so long as people are still paying to see their films. And that’s it, people do, despite it all. And generally the producers and directors won’t go the extra yards to get things right because they don’t feel the need to. Audiences are never going to become so discerning that they boycott films from bad directors or bad production companies or bad actors. There is little that can be done by us to persuade the makers to get things right.

Saving Private Ryan was a superb film, and Schindlers List and The Pianist are masterpieces. I actually also think Enemy At The Gates is pretty good indeed.

Windtalkers was appaullingly bad, utter rubbish, Cage and Woo should be shot. Same goes for Pearl Harbor and many others. And i can say this because i paid to see them – just like everyone else. So they made bad films and still got my money, so they are happy. And they don’t care that I’m not happy with those films.

QUOTE]

I’d also suggest folks start getting on the case of their own film makers to do the job right instead of being so dependent on “Hollywood”. I don’t recall seeing anything particularly worthwhile coming out of any other countries either.

Dan

I don’t know. Generally speaking, the British cinema is usually superior quality without the huge budget, as is their TV in most cases.

And as far as film industries go, the Kiwis are doing a pretty good job. And there is a major film in production here now that will be including vintage aviation too, made by a director who does care about getting things right and about his audience, so I look forward to seeing that one.

[QUOTE=Dave Homewood]Hi guys,

But despite our protests, Hollywood will still never listen to reason because like their Government, they think they know better than the rest of the world and the almighty dollar is their only goal, not public satisfaction. And their audiences are so attuned to crap timewaster flicks like Pearl Harbor, a real story would fail in the USA.

QUOTE]

I have to take issue with this particular paragraph. As one of ‘their audience’ I take a bit of offense as the implications is we’re too stupid to recognize a bad film. Pearl Harbor bombed here. We knew it stunk before it came out. Windtalkers suffered the same fate, because we knew it was garbage as was U-571, or Enemy at the Gates. You’d probably have to go back to “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, or maybe “the Pianist” that got positive reviews here and we knew that SPR wasn’t meant to be the story of D-Day and wasn’t going to be all inclusive, which seemed to tick people off anyway because it didn’t show Sword, Gold or Juno beaches even though it was only a small story within a larger time.

If Hollywood’s goal is the almighty dollar, they’ll have to tune in to how we are responding to the garbage eventually.

I’d also suggest folks start getting on the case of their own film makers to do the job right instead of being so dependent on “Hollywood”. I don’t recall seeing anything particularly worthwhile coming out of any other countries either.

Dan

Don’t worry folks, Nermal always gets a bit like that when his litter tray needs emptying.

F4: I agree.

Ah, truth is beauty; but is beauty truthful? – Nermal

Yes, the purists will probably have to boycott this movie, but I think any aviation movie is ultimately a GOOD thing as it will promote interest in warbirds and give the preservation scene a valuable injection of cash. If it gives little Jimmy an interest in Spitfires and Hurricanes, he will eventually work out the historical truth and see the movie for what it is, a popcorn flick. My 11-year old son has a healthy interest in warbirds, all a result of David Puttnam’s ‘Memphis Belle’ – he now knows most ofthe story is inaccurate, but it sowed a seed.

Technical correctness.

Quote:
……………………………………………………
“could make a presence at the aerodromes where filming will be taking place, which will I assume be either in Britain or California, and try to guide the makers while they’re doing it, rather than later when it is too late.”
……………………………………………………

I well remember on BoB, the outrage of the fuselage roundel proportions, when they wheeled the national and aviation press in to RAF Henlow for the first official look at the aircraft prior to filming. They soon changed ’em, as you can see in these two shots of MH434.

On Pearl Harbour they couldn’t even get a passable representation of a British Military serial – “AR4474” indeed. :rolleyes:

Mark

Well said, Dave.

Hi guys,

I’ve been without a PC for a few weeks and have finally got it back. I just discovered this thread and want to comment. Though it is early days I don’t hold out much hope for this film being accurate.

Hollywood’s track record is pretty poor, especially when it comes to British history. But the Battle of Britain is not just a British story, it is the history of many countries who contributed to the Battle – the Americans being one of the least of all involved.

If this turns out to be another Pearl Harbor, dozens of countries across Europe and the Commonwealth, and their men who fought in the Battle, will be gravely insulted. If the Few takes the attitude – as suggested – that this no-nothing pilot from the USA wins the Battle of Britain singlehandedly, when indeed he really contributed nothing towards the ultimate victory in the Battle, I think cinemas in Britain should boycott it. And elsewhere.

And really, haven’t we had enough stories already about Americans in the Battle of Britain? Chris Hart was bad enough in Piece of Cake with his know-all whining. Ben Affleck was the living end in Pearl Harbor with his ‘Hammer Down’ nonsense (what were they thinking?!?!) and I’me sure there have been others too. I’d rather see the story of a British pilot, a true story about one of the hundreds who took part. Or if not British, a Pole, or dare I say it, a Kiwi like Colin Grey or Alan Deere – two men who did contribute to the talley in the Battle, unlike Fiske. I’m sure a great story could be told about Ginger lacy, or Bob Stanford-Tuck, or Keith Park, or even Bader if need be since Reach For The Sky was so innaccurate. Do we really want to see Cruise hamming it up as an ace of the skies who wins the Battle? NOOOO!

But despite our protests, Hollywood will still never listen to reason because like their Government, they think they know better than the rest of the world and the almighty dollar is their only goal, not public satisfaction. And their audiences are so attuned to crap timewaster flicks like Pearl Harbor, a real story would fail in the USA.

All the talk about Cruise taking a pay cut and insisting on accuracy means VERY LITTLE, as exactly the same kind of bull was bandied about in the pre-publicity for Pearl Harbor, which of course proved to be utter lies.

The suggestion earlier on the thread of picketing cinemas if this film turns out to be the usual crap is good. But I think a more contructive idea is for those readers here who are able to, could make a presense at the aerodromes where filming will be taking place, which will I assume be either in Britain or California, and try to guide the makers while they’re doing it, rather than later when it is too late. A presence of banner toting aviation afficianadoes may make them stop and think about themselves. Get the power of the press behind you and who knows what might happen.

This is of course all dependant on how the script will be. Hopefully it will be good and accurate and we nay-sayers will be proven wrong. I somehow have my doubts about that though.

Arm Waver – I noticed EP120 (RF-M) taxiing in, alongside the full-sized static replica…. marked as RF-M!

Continuity? What’s that?! 😀