Wellington Bomber

Almost forgot….

Madonna as Mrs. Gibson…
(Yes, I know she’s not English, but she thinks she is.
However, I see no need in disturbing her dementia.)

Helena Bonham Carter….as the eccentric wild-haired pubkeeper.

Problem with that, is Hugh Grant can only ever play Hugh Grant

Yes, but he makes a good living at it.

Plus, the Official Cinema Act of 1993 requires Jude Law to be in 85% of all U.K.-based films.

With Stephen Fry writing the epic, I’m sure he can find a place for Hugh Laurie…if he can undo his American accent.

The reason the dog has to be recast is that it’s not “English enough” for many of the forum members. Labs are, after all, from Labrador.

I’m sure there are British actors who could be miscast as well…

Daniel Radciff as Gibson
Roicky Gervais as Barnes Wallace
Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister…putting a brilliant Tony Blair “spin” on Churchill
Alan Cummings as Gibson’s batman

Recast a corgi as the lab…

Problem with that, is that Ricky Gervais can only ever play Ricky Gervais, and Hugh Grant can only ever play Hugh Grant ! But, having seen a few James McEvoy movies, I can see that working….. we will see…..

I can´t see the problem with the dog´s name all of you are talking about! Ofcourse his name will be very simple. His name is “Native-African-American”:D:D That should settle it for once and all:eek:

I agree – am poised to post in a rage when Tom Cruise is cast as Guy Gibson:diablo: Harrison Ford as Barnes Wallis:diablo:….Mat Damon as “dingy young”

I’m sure there are British actors who could be miscast as well…

Daniel Radciff as Gibson
Roicky Gervais as Barnes Wallace
Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister…putting a brilliant Tony Blair “spin” on Churchill
Alan Cummings as Gibson’s batman

Recast a corgi as the lab…

The essence of a thousand bomber raid for instance, of seven thousand guys sitting on their bums with their faces obscured by helmets, goggles and masks for seven or eight hours, does not lend itself readily to much in the way of an exciting movie.

Do you seriously believe that some director or producer would let himself into making a film only showing crews flying to Cologne, dropping their load and flying back home?

Do you think it possible that there might be some kind of story behind it all? Have you seen “Memphis Belle”? What is it about? An air-raid! Surely not one of the best aviation films but it has its high-points.

I agree – am poised to post in a rage when Tom Cruise is cast as Guy Gibson:diablo: Harrison Ford as Barnes Wallis:diablo:….Mat Damon as “dingy young”
,

Some reports have said that James McEvoy will be Gibson, and Sir Ian McKellan as Wallis. Whether it’s accurate is anyone’s guess.

The essence of a thousand bomber raid for instance, of seven thousand guys sitting on their bums with their faces obscured by helmets, goggles and masks for seven or eight hours, does not lend itself readily to much in the way of an exciting movie.

Combined with those who were on the receiving end it probably would.

Peter

I will keep my faith in the attention to detail and fresh approach that is normally shown in their work by those that work for Wingnut Films and Weta Workshops, amd in the scriptwriter Stephen Fry and others involved like Frost and Jackson and Rivers, all intelligent and respectd men, and reserve judgment till I’ve seen the film.

I agree – am poised to post in a rage when Tom Cruise is cast as Guy Gibson:diablo: Harrison Ford as Barnes Wallis:diablo:….Mat Damon as “dingy young”

am looking forward to some images of the models etc as well as casting,

the dog…played by Kiera Knightly

Method acting?! :diablo:

Another option that would work well Moggy is a bomber crew who get shot down and have to evade capture, a modern day One of our Aircraft is Missing. There are plenty of true stories to draw from, many of them fighter pilots rather than bombers of course but there would be more dynmaics on screen with a crew in terms of dialogue in English, etc.

Making aviation movies to appeal to the mass market (Translates to ‘makes money’) is a pretty tricky proposition.

I doubt Titanic, which earned money, was much loved on any veteran steamships forum.

The essence of a thousand bomber raid for instance, of seven thousand guys sitting on their bums with their faces obscured by helmets, goggles and masks for seven or eight hours, does not lend itself readily to much in the way of an exciting movie. Inevitably there would need to be lots of ‘ops room’ plot exposition.

The Amiens raid stands a better chance, but you’d almost certainly need to do a lot of work establishing some sort of sympathy with the prisoners via their back story. So you’d end up much like the sub-plot in 633 Squadron, but with CGI Mosquito instead of the real thing plus tacky models.

As soon as there is any ‘plot’ added, the purists here will scream about too many WAAFs and popsies, and not enough aircraft.

Cram it full of aircraft and no plot and you’ll end up with a turkey that won’t even make a profit on DVD.

Moggy

I will keep my faith in the attention to detail and fresh approach that is normally shown in their work by those that work for Wingnut Films and Weta Workshops, amd in the scriptwriter Stephen Fry and others involved like Frost and Jackson and Rivers, all intelligent and respectd men, and reserve judgment till I’ve seen the film.

You must be joking. By that logic then you’d not have any theatre companies putting on Shakespeare plays because you consider it theft from the orginal company that first staged it, or you’d never allow symphonie orchestras to play Beethoven again because someone else has played it before? Tosh.

Dave, you are confusing performance with creation. I could go on, but I shan’t.

They have renamed it, all the references to the new film have it as Dambusters, not The Dam Busters.

That’s a meaningful difference?

I would also see new stories being made into films, there are so many amazing war stories out there. But I have no problem with remakes at the same time. A remake is NOT a crime.

Never said it was. It is starting with a second rate attitude, normally with a second-rate result.

How is it any different from writing a new book on a subject previously covered by someone else in print? It’s a new interpretation using more modern methods and ways of thinking around the subject.

If I though this production were likely to actually tell the story differently, I’d take the point. 90 gets 10 it’ll be the same story with a couple more swearwords and more blood and guts all over the shop. In colour. Whop de do. We don’t know yet, but it’s going to take a bit more than losing a gap and a capital letter, isn’t it?

I’m sure there are more than one book out there on Spitfires or Hurricanes (or Lysanders?) but people still buy the new ones that tell the same story

Interesting you should mention that. I’m not aware of any books on the Lysander that covers the same ground as any other. Bruce Robertson’s excellent Lysander special was entirely different to my book, which, aside from my own work, contained mostly previously unpublished content. There are books on (even) the Spitfire with new stuff to say, and there are also plenty of potboilers retreading the same old garbage.

Again, I’d like to believe this production was going to tackle new ground on the 617 operation, but by pulling a minor change to the original title, it does not augur well. Yes, it’s a small thing – it tells you a lot though, like the insistence of using Ratatouille even in the face of the ignorance of the film-promoters.

The test’s simple. Would you rather want to see 1) a ‘new’ Dam Busters, or 2) another film on another worthwhile topic? 2, ta.

Cheers,

One good thing about Peter Jackson’s involvement with Dambusters may be that it will encourage Lord of the Rings fans to watch it, there are plenty of them, and if only a small percentage develop an interest for history (real history :rolleyes:) that would be no bad thing.

Now you’re just splitting hairs… :rolleyes:

Where?:confused:

in the arts, copying and remaking varies in regard between being thought of as outright theft and a stunning lack of originality.

You must be joking. By that logic then you’d not have any theatre companies putting on Shakespeare plays because you consider it theft from the orginal company that first staged it, or you’d never allow symphonie orchestras to play Beethoven again because someone else has played it before? Tosh.

If Jackson and co are making a film about the same events, then why not call it something other than The Dam Busters??

They have renamed it, all the references to the new film have it as Dambusters, not The Dam Busters.

I would also see new stories being made into films, there are so many amazing war stories out there. But I have no problem with remakes at the same time. A remake is NOT a crime. How is it any different from writing a new book on a subject previously covered by someone else in print? It’s a new interpretation using more modern methods and ways of thinking around the subject. I’m sure there are more than one book out there on Spitfires or Hurricanes (or Lysanders?) but people still buy the new ones that tell the same story.

If you called it ‘Chastise’ you might get the grubby mac brigade handing over their hard-earned hoping to see a schoolgirl spanking epic.

Moggy

And so they’ll think it’s a remake. Hey, you could try Apres Moi le Deluge – except that’d require a thought – I mean who’d use a French word for a film about rats? Or Top Bomb, or 617 Knights of the German Skies? Or Some brave chaps and their anonymous dog? Or Brits beat Krauts at the Waterside (Beachtowel Wars)…

I knew there was some fun to be had here; clearly the film’s title is where it’s at. 😀

“Apres Moi le Deluge” LOL!!:D

I say we do a slight re-write and re brand the dog as Guy Gibsons love interest, played by Kiera Knightly. In one fell swoop we gain a romanctic sub plot and lose “The dog that dare not speak its name”. Everyone wins! Now if we could just work in a gold bullion heist, we´d have a sure fire winner!

Because its about the Dam Busters raid? And everyone who has ever heard if it refers to it as such?

And so they’ll think it’s a remake. Hey, you could try Apres Moi le Deluge – except that’d require a thought – I mean who’d use a French word for a film about rats? Or Top Bomb, or 617 Knights of the German Skies? Or Some brave chaps and their anonymous dog? Or Brits beat Krauts at the Waterside (Beachtowel Wars)…

I knew there was some fun to be had here; clearly the film’s title is where it’s at. 😀

Making a film about historical events is “an original idea”?!?!?

Because its about the Dam Busters raid? And everyone who has ever heard if it refers to it as such?

Now you’re just splitting hairs… :rolleyes: