Stephen Fry and THAT film remake

Not sure if it’s ever been mentioned here. But if you need some proof of Jacksons interest in Aviation and authenticity he started a plastic model company producing WW1 aircraft.

If you’ve never seen them have a look, and check the galleries

http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/

Those models are droolsome!!

Here you go:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/inventor_images/barnes_wallis_michael_redgrave.jpg

I totally agree Topgun Reject that the Dambusters story would make a great 12-part mini-series. There is far more to it than the Dams raid alone – the Tirpitz alone is a massive story – and I think the likes of Leonard Cheshire and others who lead the squadron deserve the same accolades as Gibson receives. I think without the 1955 film, Gibson would be long forgotten by now by the general public.

I heard both Richard Todd and Wallis son speak at an event in 2008, and they both admitted that Redgrave was good, but spoke much faster than the real Wallis, as if he hadn’t, the film would have been much longer! Wallis always spoke in a steady, measured way.

Redgrave followed him about for a few days in 1954 (literally in his footsteps at times) to learn his mannerisms.

The Australian radio programme is excellent and follows the Squadron through to the end of the war … but even for the die-hard listener, it’s a LONG 13 hours!

Regards,

Iain.

I remember reading a 2 part article in either Flypast or the ‘other’ publication about the filming of the original Dam Busters and it mentions a meeting between Michael Redgrave and Barnes Wallis. Redgrave had said that didn’t want to imitate Wallis, to which Wallis had replied “No you must not do that dear boy, you must try to create me”

I really enjoyed the radio series in Dave’s link when I listened to it when it was first posted. I would love to see it dramatized on screen as a mini series in a similar way that the story of ‘Easy Company’ was told in Band of Brothers. Would that be possible, I wonder? Certainly with the quality of CGI these days and PJs Plastic Lancs I think it could be.

Martin

Naw… Those were the slag heaps at Lens that you can see from the A26 😎

Moggy

The well known mountain ranges of Kent apart.

A bit like the mountains of the Pays de Calais in the film ‘Battle of Britain’. 🙂

… and it looks fantastic.

The well known mountain ranges of Kent apart.

Talking sequels..

The Iron Lady isn’t a patch on Iron Man. Not nearly as much action.

Moggy

I dunno, I would quite welcome some spruced up footage of the bombs exploding behind the dams.

If it’s done sympathetically, with a view to improving the sequence concerned rather than adding to it (which seems to be Lucas’s downfall), then it can work out nicely. Look at Dark Blue World as an example – they had stock footage from Battle of Britain, added in some digital effects such as tracer fire, spent shells etc, and it looks fantastic.

It CAN be done right in the right hands. Lucas might have the budget to do the effects he wants, but he can’t contain himself when the film doesn’t necessarily call for it.

Let’s face it, the film is pretty good apart from the SFX (which were up for an award in their day), so why not just remake the SFX and cut it into the original film? Lucas did that with the Star Wars re-releases!

And look what Lucas has done with cgi, every single scene has been butchered, whilst cgi is very very good these days there is nothing like having the real physical models or aircraft to use.

But if the original was cleaned up and ‘enhanced’ there would still be howls of rage.

To those who were earlier arguing as to why Stephen Fry is in New Zealand, he caused a controversy here yesterday about NZ’s broadband service. When it hit the news all the sources were saying he is here working on the filming of The Hobbit. Billy Connolly has been here recently for the same film project as have many others.

Iain, I loved every minute of those 13 hours and wished there were more when it ended.

Funny that! seeing as thats what he said he was going to NZ for:diablo:

To those who were earlier arguing as to why Stephen Fry is in New Zealand, he caused a controversy here yesterday about NZ’s broadband service. When it hit the news all the sources were saying he is here working on the filming of The Hobbit. Billy Connolly has been here recently for the same film project as have many others.

Iain, I loved every minute of those 13 hours and wished there were more when it ended.

That is interesting because in the 1954 radio version made by Australasian Radio on the other side of the world, a year before, the actor that they cast as Wallis sounds exactly like Redgrave did in the film. I assumed that both had based the voice on the real chap.

I heard both Richard Todd and Wallis son speak at an event in 2008, and they both admitted that Redgrave was good, but spoke much faster than the real Wallis, as if he hadn’t, the film would have been much longer! Wallis always spoke in a steady, measured way.

Redgrave followed him about for a few days in 1954 (literally in his footsteps at times) to learn his mannerisms.

Neither Todd nor Barnes Junior were impressed at the thought of a remake.

Let’s face it, the film is pretty good apart from the SFX (which were up for an award in their day), so why not just remake the SFX and cut it into the original film? Lucas did that with the Star Wars re-releases!

The Australian radio programme is excellent and follows the Squadron through to the end of the war … but even for the die-hard listener, it’s a LONG 13 hours!

Regards,

Iain.

The real question has to be, how many remakes are better than the originals?

Which totally overlooks the fact that this isn´t a remake of some old film – it´s a new film about historical events.

A new film of 633 Sqadron would be a remake.

The new True Grit is a re-interpretation of the original book.

The Chuck Heston Ben Hur is better than the 1922 silent version.
Is the first ever film of Dracula the best version?
Who´s the best Superman, or Tarzan, or Sherlock Holmes?
And Alien is one hell of a lot better than “It – the terror from beyond space”.

That is interesting because in the 1954 radio version made by Australasian Radio on the other side of the world, a year before, the actor that they cast as Wallis sounds exactly like Redgrave did in the film. I assumed that both had based the voice on the real chap.

Does anyone know if there is a way of attaching audio here?… if there is, I’ll put up the REAL Barnes Wallis to demonstrate what I mean! (and yes, I know I could do it via YouTube, but I dont want to go down that road)

just as Michael Redgrave became the voice of Barnes Wallis. I have a recording of Barnes Wallis talking about 617 and having played it to a number of people, they refuse to believe who it is!

That is interesting because in the 1954 radio version made by Australasian Radio on the other side of the world, a year before, the actor that they cast as Wallis sounds exactly like Redgrave did in the film. I assumed that both had based the voice on the real chap.

The Australians in the Australian squadrons weren’t segregated – they were actually RAAF personnel serving in RAF numbered squadrons. Probably made no real sense to have the Australian units in Bomber Command allocated RAAF numbers, although 3 Squadron RAAF which fought in North Africa and Italy retained its RAAF number, as did 10 Squadron RAAF which flew Sunderlands in Coastal Command. The other thing was that ground crews, base support staff etc. on the Bomber Command bases were mainly RAF, while the aircrew also had some mixing of nationalities depending on supply of replacement crews. Then of course there were Australian crews serving in RAF units.

Just to correct a misconception, or maybe how you perceived Malcolm it happened: 3 and 10 Sqns RAAF were ‘permanent’ RAAF squadrons that were deployed in 1939 and 1940, and stayed for the duration. Much like 75 Sqn RNZAF.

During 1940 the EATS, or Commonwealth flying traing scheme, started to train hundreds of thousands of aircrew to feed RAF squadrons, and the national “Article XV” squadrons.

Article XV units is why 401 to 449 Sqn numbers were allocated to RCAF; 450 to 484 (I think) allocated to RAAF (only numbered up to 467); and 485 and above to RNZAF. These squadrons were “nominally” dominion, but often commanded by RAF, always with RAF equipment and with some – in a few cases mainly – RAF groundcrew.

Although nominally a dominion squadron, they were naturally under RAF control. Lets face it, it was the most effective way to operate. The difference was that the Canadians, perhaps recognising the lack of national identity in WWI, insisted in Bomber Cd to their own Group – 6 Group.

So although a lot of Australians served in the “RAAF” Article XV sqns, a lot also served in the the RCAF and RNZAF squadrons, but probably most served in the RAF squadrons. These latter guys march on ANZAC Day as “Odd Bods”.

By far, Sir Peter’s version of King Kong was miles better than both previous big screen versions.

Oooooh, I dunno about that, Dave! :p I know opinions are entirely our own, but I feel the original, 1933 version, is just far and away better than the remake.

As for superior remakes/versions – True Grit (2010), The Thing (1982), Dracula (1958), Black Beauty (1994), Flicka (2006), The Fly (1986) – just off the top of my head, like. Into the Blue (2005) was a semi-remake of The Deep (1977) but it was just as good, I think, as the film it was based on. And it had Jessica Alba wearing, let’s face it, not much…. :diablo:

Anyway, come on Mr. Jackson, do a remake of Aces High!!!

Actually, there are a great number of similarities between Gibson and Morgan, the Dam Busters and Memphis Belle – as I discovered when myself and Dr Harry Friedman wrote a certain 536-page book – for which we were vilified by many. Flypast, for example, when they reviewed it called it ‘tosh’ despite the thirty years of research that went into it!

The similarities are many and varied – everything from Morgan flying his 25th mission on the same day as Operation Chastise took place 17th May 1943 – to both stories featuring a black dog – a black labrador in the case of The Dam Busters called Nigger and a little black scotty dog called Stuka with the Memphis Belle.

Three years after our book came out, I am convinced that it all comes down to public perception and peoples ‘comfort bubbles’. Prove to them by use of primary source documentation that what they believe as ‘the truth’ is nothing more than a myth, and many feel hurt – not by what they once knew, but by what they now know. The ‘villians’ as they see it are not those who misled them first time around – no matter how innoccently – but those who years later then dispelled the myths!

Paul Brickhill’s book came out in 1951, and the film was released in 1955 – that’s over 60 years for each work to become icons and embed themselves in the public’s psyche. It’s the same with Memphis Belle. In 1943 the American media machine hit top gear promoting the aircraft and crew in what was really the first and enormous war-bond tour, then in 1944 William Wylers movie came out and was shown in cinemas everywhere. All four works were, using today’s terminology, ‘blockbusters’ and all four works remained ‘untouched’ for a great number of years. Eric Coate’s march became also became iconic – so much that it almost became THE soundtrack to the RAF.

The public – even knowledgable ones – became happy with what they thought they knew from the four sources. The Dam Busters, Guy Gibson Mickey Martin et all became enshrined in a sterile bubble of knowledge. Richard Todd became the voice of Guy Gibson, just as Michael Redgrave became the voice of Barnes Wallis. I have a recording of Barnes Wallis talking about 617 and having played it to a number of people, they refuse to believe who it is!

It’s the same with Bob Morgan and Memphis Belle – the 1944 movie was, by and large factually correct, but subject to wartime security. Wyler was originally ordered to make a ten minute ‘short’ – it was originally going to be called ‘Phyllis was a Fortress – but events evolved into the 43-minute film we know today. The few fragments of Morgan’s voice that did appear in the film became that southern drawl that was imitated by many in the immediate post war years to represent any wartime pilot.

The difference between The Dam Busters is that the Memphis Belle ‘remake’ happened in 1990, while the Dam Busters one has yet to happen. In fact, the 1990 Putnam/Wyler movie is not a remake, but a different fictionalised story. To their dubious credit, Putnam, Wyler and Caton-Jones never claimed it was historically accurate. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the only cross-overs between the two films is the aircraft name applied to a B-17 that was based in England. In fact for the longest of time it was not even going to be called that, it was going to be named Southern Belle!

I was involved in the build-up to the 1990 movie made by Enigma Productions, and there was great expectation that here was going to be produced a film that would show the bravery and terrible grandeur of what happened back in 1943. If anyone does not believe me, check back through the magazines of the day – No one ‘attacked’ what was being planned – everyone was looking forward to it. Perhaps expectation was too high, perhaps the media led everyone to believe that the movie was going to be something it was not.

Then the movie appeared – and got panned. Bob Morgan is said to have said after the premier – and I paraphase him – ‘…if everything in that movie had happened to us on a single mission, I would’ve died of heart failure!’

Here, I think is the heart of the problem with any Dan Buster re-make or re-work. I will state here and now, I love the 1955 movie and all attached to it. The mood, the music, the acting, the style – all is so incredibly iconic. Yes, the ‘effects’ could be done a lot better nowadays, yes, the bomb could and would look a whole lot different. Maybe it would look better if filmed in colour…

But I am sure that ‘those who think they know’ would react badly to having the myths and legends corrected – to having their ‘comfort bubbles’ so cruelly burst. They would react badly to anything that shows that their heroes who they have become so used to having their heads in the sky actually have feet of clay – even if it is more ‘historically accurate’. There would be – just as there are now here – endless letters and posts made regarding the ‘sacrilege of the attack’ on an iconic film – meanwhile the public at large will go and see what may or may not be a good movie!

I think we need to separate facts from fiction. Know what we know – both then and now – about all the real characters, aircraft and locations but remember at all times to keep them apart from events created in Hollywood, Pinewood or wherever!

As far as the RAF are concerned, the early years of the war reflected the pre-war weekend fliers, many of whom were university students. They were just as dead when they were killed. As the airforce expanded, the catchment widened. In a large part, the war was directed and won by a bunch of people with, as you term them, ‘posh’, ‘..poncey, clipped’,…voices. Such perjorative terms are simply a display of ignorance. Sure, some spoke a little differently….and so..??? If that’s you’re criteria, then you are going to miss out on a lot of awfully good films. After all, cunning linguists made a huge contribution to winning the war.

You really need to read before you post. Why are you picking up on me as someone who won’t watch because the accents are wrong? It is others saying that, I’m saying I don’t give a hoot if they use more generally acceptable accents. I won’t be missing anything, unlike the accent snobs.

The real question has to be, how many remakes are better than the originals?

By far, Sir Peter’s version of King Kong was miles better than both previous big screen versions. Also another I feel is better as a remake is The Lady Vanishes. The original is still good but the remake was excellent. There are in fact many examples of better remakes. There are many that are rubbish too. You cannot sweepingly say they are all one or the other.

I think that because Gibson didn’t survive the war, or have any children (that I’m aware) there is a danger that the man can be portrayed any which way, as there is no one “looking out” for him.

Not true in this case. Les Munro is the technical consultant on the film. He knew Gibson well enough and when I talked with him about Gibson he felt that sure he could be a bit hot headed a lot of the reputation was not true. So i am sure that Les will be looking out for him, and I’m sure Sir peter and the team will not go out of their way to denegrate Gibson for the sake of it.

What’s this about Robert Morgan? :confused:

Much is made of his affair for example (less critisism of the Memphis Belle pilot Robert Morgan who wasn’t totally dissimilar)

Don’t start me off about what that ‘gentleman’ was like!

WETA will most likely do the effects work. And you can bet they’ll do a bloody good job of it!