Wellington Bomber

The idea wasn’t an “original”, no, but to put it on the big screen was the original idea.

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

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

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

Not sure I follow the logic here. The b/w film wasn´t an original idea from some screenwriter anyway. A “remake” of actual events, if you like. Jackson and co are making a film about the same events. Not remaking the old film.

Glen or Glenda? LOL

The idea wasn’t an “original”, no, but to put it on the big screen was the original idea.

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

Not sure I follow the logic here. The b/w film wasn´t an original idea from some screenwriter anyway. A “remake” of actual events, if you like.

Rather like paintings, sculpture and opera ‘about’ some historical event or person, then?

Jackson and co are making a film about the same events. Not remaking the old film.

Well, that’s all right then, isn’t it. :diablo: I’m sure it’ll be a whole new experience. Wonder if they’ll show the speed with which Germany recovered for a knock out blow that wasn’t? That would be different to the original film, and a ‘new’ story.

Yes, I’m being grumpy and awkward – because I do think tackling a new topic from the vast array of possibilities would have been more worthwhile than a retread of a story already perfectly well told in film. There would also be the bonus of avoiding the sodding dog. I’d have been interested in a film on a new topic; I doubt I’ll cross the street for this one.

Cheers,

So let’s keep remaking movies or doing stuff people already ‘know’. Crap. Movies can and will and should tell new stories; it’s a poverty of imagination and a lack of guts and cultural cowardice that goes for remakes, because it’s ‘safe’. This is then excused and supported by the big studios on the financial risk cop-out. If you don’t want risk, don’t try and make good movies – make pap (oh, they do…). If we play ‘safe’ we end up in the padded room. Thank God for Dark Blue World, The World’s Fastest Indian and other films where someone’s had the guts to tell a ‘new’ story, which I for one enjoyed learning from.

Remaking Dam Busters is a poor idea – it doesn’t need improvement, it would IMHO be far better to tell the story of, say the Amiens Prison Raid, which has it all, plotwise.

Jackson’s a great technical film-maker, and I’m very appreciative of his Great War efforts, but he’s going backwards with his gutless choice of remakes, IMHO. He’s not going to get listed as a great director in history going this route.

Having new stuff in colour with guts spread all over the screen is a poor tradeoff against the ability to tell a new story.

I’m not disagreeing with you at all, Kighters, I’m just saying that I don’t think the majority wouldn’t go for it as much as we would.

I absolutely despise the amount of remakes – classic movies or TV shows – that come out these days. Don’t get me wrong, there is the odd one or two that are very good (2004’s Dawn of the Dead, for instance), but the vast majority should be stuck in a big pile with lashings of petrol and disposed of…

Because (assuming you regard films as one of the arts) it falls under the same criteria as the rest which is that generally, in the arts, copying and remaking varies in regard between being thought of as outright theft and a stunning lack of originality.

Not sure I follow the logic here. The b/w film wasn´t an original idea from some screenwriter anyway. A “remake” of actual events, if you like. Jackson and co are making a film about the same events. Not remaking the old film.

Glen or Glenda? LOL

Whats the problem with remaking films of historical stories? Remaking fiction is perhaps questionable, though mostly preferable to lame sequels.

Because (assuming you regard films as one of the arts) it falls under the same criteria as the rest which is that generally, in the arts, copying and remaking varies in regard between being thought of as outright theft and a stunning lack of originality.

So yes, I’d rather there were average new topics than average remakes made. Either can, of course be excellent or poor. But an excellent remake will always be second to the original. Even when made the first time by a man who liked Angora sweaters.

Regards,

I read somewhere that they were planning to change the name of Gibson’s dog, ‘Nigger’, or omitting it entirely to avoid offending modern sensibilities.

I expect one day we’ll get a thread involving the Dambusters (New or old) where somebody doesn’t drag up the bloody dog.

Then again, perhaps not.

Moggy

(Apologies to India Xray who is pretty new and may not realise just how tedious this topic becomes after the umpteenth, near identical post)

A “new story”? I´ll wait for your reaction to the historical accuracy of Tarantinos “Glorious Bar-stewards” when that appears!

Whats the problem with remaking films of historical stories? Remaking fiction is perhaps questionable, though mostly preferable to lame sequels.

And what is this “good” Titanic film of which you speak?? The last one I saw was very dull unless you like watching water going along corridors.

Jackson has only remade one film, King Kong, and it was a far better effort then the two previous efforts for a million reasons. All his other films have been original creations or first time filmic adaptations of popular books.

I still think his first was his best… 😉 As to ‘far better’, that’s a matter of opinion. A new story would have been better still, but there’s a comfort in knowing what the ending is, isn’t there. It’s safe.

Once again, it is Christian Rivers making Dambusters, Jackson is just an investor, like Sir David Frost who started the project and others.

Fair points Dave, but Jackson’s a bit more than an ‘investor’ in the project, surely? He drove the idea to make it happen. He could have got off his duff and chosen another subject.

Regards,

Jackson’s a great technical film-maker, and I’m very appreciative of his Great War efforts, but he’s going backwards with his gutless choice of remakes, IMHO. He’s not going to get listed as a great director in history going this route.

Jackson has only remade one film, King Kong, and it was a far better effort then the two previous efforts for a million reasons. All his other films have been original creations or first time filmic adaptations of popular books.

Once again, it is Christian Rivers making Dambusters, Jackson is just an investor, like Sir David Frost who started the project and others.

Because it would probably flop since 99% of people wouldn’t go and see it. Or wouldn’t care about the story or the aircraft depicted in it.

So let’s keep remaking movies or doing stuff people already ‘know’. Crap. Movies can and will and should tell new stories; it’s a poverty of imagination and a lack of guts and cultural cowardice that goes for remakes, because it’s ‘safe’. This is then excused and supported by the big studios on the financial risk cop-out. If you don’t want risk, don’t try and make good movies – make pap (oh, they do…). If we play ‘safe’ we end up in the padded room. Thank God for Dark Blue World, The World’s Fastest Indian and other films where someone’s had the guts to tell a ‘new’ story, which I for one enjoyed learning from.

Remaking Dam Busters is a poor idea – it doesn’t need improvement, it would IMHO be far better to tell the story of, say the Amiens Prison Raid, which has it all, plotwise.

Jackson’s a great technical film-maker, and I’m very appreciative of his Great War efforts, but he’s going backwards with his gutless choice of remakes, IMHO. He’s not going to get listed as a great director in history going this route.

Having new stuff in colour with guts spread all over the screen is a poor tradeoff against the ability to tell a new story.

Well I for one am not looking forward to it. I read somewhere that they were planning to change the name of Gibson’s dog, ‘Nigger’, or omitting it entirely to avoid offending modern sensibilities.

If they change details like that, no matter how small, it’s no longer history. If you’re simply going for ratings, why not swap the Lancs for Eurofighters?

Do it right or don’t do it at all, that’s my view. Anything less would be a disservice not only to 617 Squadron but Bomber Command as a whole.

Apologies for the rant, but I’m touchy about things like this.

IX

Each to their own but I find your attitude rather bizarre. All history films, even documentaries, have to omit details or change history slightly. The original Dam Busters film is full of errors too, do you refuse to watch that one?

And as far as the use of the dog’s name goes, was what you read an official statement from the makers or just conjecture on a forum?

Well I for one am not looking forward to it. I read somewhere that they were planning to change the name of Gibson’s dog, ‘Nigger’, or omitting it entirely to avoid offending modern sensibilities.

If they change details like that, no matter how small, it’s no longer history. If you’re simply going for ratings, why not swap the Lancs for Eurofighters?

Do it right or don’t do it at all, that’s my view. Anything less would be a disservice not only to 617 Squadron but Bomber Command as a whole.

Apologies for the rant, but I’m touchy about things like this.

IX

Who knows, with the apparent quantity of Lancaster replicas, if “Dambusters” is a box-office success maybe it’ll turn into a trilogy. Augsburg has already been suggested (I’ll second that) which Lancaster raid might be best for a third. Something with a “Tallboy” (wonder-weapon) maybe the attack on the Tirpitz?

Roger Smith.

I mean, let’s face it, WE, as aviation enthusiasts, would appreciate the scenes of bomber crews going down in their aluminium coffins, the Luftwaffe tearing into the formations and the Little Friends doing their best to fend them off, but the average cinema-goer, Mr John Smith and his family of Smiths, would be bored of seeing umpteen B-17s etc going down in flames…

Augsburg?….B-17s going down in flames?….has there been a Hollywood remake already? :diablo:

It must be remembered that the director of The Dambusters is Christian Rivers, not Peter Jackson.

if it makes one person pick up a history book and read on, I’ll be happy.

It wouldn’t necessarliy only take Dambusters to do that. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to it too! Looking at what Jackson has done in the past I’m sure it’s going to be great. However, I still believe that there were other Bomber Command operations that deserve the same treatment on the silver screen that Dambusters got and that would also draw crowds (providing it is done well).

Peter

I’m actually quite looking forward to it.

Why not remake it? It’s a truly classic story that is familiar to many people, and the original version is now so outdated it will simply fade from the minds of the public because the younger generation won’t relate to it. Amodern coloured version with hopefully a more accurate storyline will be most welcome. My only concern is I doubt anyone could better Michael Redgrave’s performance as Barnes Wallis.

I sat through it with my 8 year old a few weeks back, he went outside to the garden, used his thumb as a “scale” to judge 30 feet (approx hight of the house) then doubled it – “wow daddy, 60 feet at night with no help”…. he got well into the notion and sat in the bath with his little sister trying to demonstrate bouncing bombs. a remake will bring a new audience not only to this story but hopefully the rest of the history. I’m 42 and a good friend of mine feels that our generation is the last with a direct link to WW-2, the last that knew people who served. To an 8 year old, its as relevent as Waterloo was to us – if it makes one person pick up a history book and read on, I’ll be happy.

Why not remake it? It’s a truly classic story that is familiar to many people, and the original version is now so outdated it will simply fade from the minds of the public because the younger generation won’t relate to it. Amodern coloured version with hopefully a more accurate storyline will be most welcome. My only concern is I doubt anyone could better Michael Redgrave’s performance as Barnes Wallis.