dark light

colin.barron

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 208 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Heads up today at 4:15 The Malta Story More4 #1362351
    colin.barron
    Participant

    Wouldn’t this film be a great contender for a big-budget remake?

    Colin

    colin.barron
    Participant

    As if the Falklands hadn’t already proved that ships alone cannot defend themselves, let alone anything else. Not so much a short sighted decision as a blatantly criminal one. I only hope it doesn’t cost lives like the last such bunch of idiot decisions.

    Very well said. One of the reasons we nearly lost the Falklands War was because we didn’t have any full size aircraft carriers. If Labour hadn’t decided to scrap the aircraft carriers in 1967 it is likely that the Falklands War would never have happened or if it had most if not all of the shipping losses could have been prevented. A task force equipped with AEW aircraft and long range Phantoms would have decimated the Argentine Air Force before it got anywhere near our ships.

    I see from the most recent “Sunday Express” that Argentina is doing some sabre rattling again over the Falklands and its air force is now double the size it was in 1982.

    Colin

    in reply to: Aircraft in 'The Eagle Has Landed' #1367505
    colin.barron
    Participant

    Sorry guys i think you are all getting a bit carried away, if you look at the pic of Mr Caine infront of the Buchon it is plainly a made up shot of two images one on top of the other!!!!

    That may be true but over the years I have seen a number of publicity shots from the film showing Michael Caine beside a Buchon.

    Colin

    in reply to: Aircraft in 'The Eagle Has Landed' #1368252
    colin.barron
    Participant

    A viewing of the movie may be in order tonight – I don’t recall seeing a Buchon, but it would explain the cover art showing Michael Caine standing in front of one.

    http://www.screenselect.co.uk/images/products/5/2095-large.jpg

    (What extended version??)

    I bought a “Collectors Edition” DVD of “The Eagle Has Landed” a year or two ago. This has a number of Special Features. You can also view an “extended” version of the film featuring previously deleted scenes. This includes a lengthy scene on the airfield where Caine & Co discuss the forthcoming mission. It is here that you see the Buchon in the background . I believe it can also be glimpsed very briefly in the background in the shorter version of the film just before the paratroops are first shown the Dakota.

    Colin

    in reply to: Aircraft in 'The Eagle Has Landed' #1368419
    colin.barron
    Participant

    Strange, was about to ask this question myself, one of my favourite movies! Where were the Ju 52’s, on the Alderney airbase? Don’t remember seeing any

    I used to have an article in an old “Photoplay” about the making of this film. The Dakota was actually owned by an air cargo firm (based in Jersey I think) and was loaned for the production. In one airfield scene you can see a Ju 52 and Buchon in the background. I believe this scene may have been shot at Blackbushe as the aircraft were owned by Doug Arnold. Would anyone like to correct me?

    Some publicity shots for the film (which have appeared on the cover of some of the DVD and VHS releases) show Michael Caine standing beside a Buchon. More airfield scenes appear in the extended DVD release.

    Best Wishes,

    Colin

    in reply to: Battle of Britain – British technology #1369525
    colin.barron
    Participant

    I read something about the De Wilde ammo which was provided to RAF Fighter Command just in time to make a difference. If there is any truth in this I don’t know as Dornier 17’s came back peppered with bulletholes.

    Cees

    I have mentioned this point in other threads before but Wing Cdr “Dizzy” Allen wrote a book called “Who Really Won the Battle of Britain?”,published in the 1970s. Allen was very critical of the 8 x 0.303 machine gun armament of 1940 RAF fighters. He said that even in 1940 it wasn’t really up to the job of downing German Bombers. He mentioned cases where German bombers returned to base safely with 300 bullet holes in their structure. He said that just 50 rounds of 0.50 cal ammuntion would have caused the average German bomber to explode.

    One 0.50 cal gun has three times the firepower of a 0.303 weapon plus greater range so a battery of just four 0.50 Colt-Brownings would have been more effective than 8 x 0.303 . By the way the 20mm Hispano gun had three times the firepower of the .50 cal and nine times the firepower of the 0.303.

    Colin

    in reply to: Battle of britain special effects test #1383312
    colin.barron
    Participant

    Hi everyone, duderank posting for the first time on the subject of the “Battle of Britain” movie. I understand there exists footage of a novel way of depicting the films Me109s being “shot down” that was tested but not utilised due to very obvious safety issues. It had something to do with a contrivance designed to shoot out flames from beneath the wings of a Buchon. Has anyone seen this footage and can tell me if it was tested air to air as I suspect it might, and are there any photographs of this?

    “Aeroplane” Magazine held a convention to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of the movie and this was held at Duxford in September 1999. A considerable amount of “behind the scenes” footage was shown at the convention and this included footage taken by the Pinewood Art Dept (colour,probably 16mm) showing a flame generating device fitted to a Buchon.

    We saw a Buchon on the ground fitted with a pipe like device under one wing. When it was fired a huge jet of flame shot out behind the pipe.

    I don’t know if this device was ever used in the air – perhaps it was too dangerous. Perhaps if you contacted Tony Harmsworth of “Aeroplane” Magazine (who was MC at the event) he might know more about this.

    Colin

    in reply to: James Bond film aircraft #1385532
    colin.barron
    Participant

    My old office at Northolt looked out at the “Bond Hangar” as it’s still known on the base, as it was used in Goldfinger as the base for Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus.

    The real flying for the Octopussy Bede “fly through” was done elsewhere but the Northolt T2 was used for the interior shots that were done with a model.

    When they came to shoot the scene where the small jet flies through the hangar,the only reason they didn’t do it for real was because it would happen too fast and the camera would have recorded a blur. So they fixed the plane to a pole mounted on top of an old Jaguar with the roof and side pillars cut off. Then they drove it through the hangar very fast!

    Colin

    in reply to: Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss #1397666
    colin.barron
    Participant

    One idea Iยดd suggest for some of the classics like ‘Sink the Bismark’ and ‘The Dambusters’ is to keep the live action but re-do the special effects. Some of the model work makes old movies looks a bit creaky but replace it with modern CGI and you would have a much more accesible film while preserving the performances of the actors from the original.

    An interesting idea! Some of the”Dr Who” DVDs have been released with a “Special Features” option of viewing some of the creaky models shots re-done with modern CGI e.g. “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” and “The Ark in Space”.

    Colin

    in reply to: Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss #1411702
    colin.barron
    Participant

    One of the problems facing the makers of any British war epic is that British WW2 films do well in the UK but not very well anywhere else,particularly the USA.

    Let me illustrate this point by considering three films – “633 Squadron”,”Battle of Britain” and “A Bridge Too Far”.

    Frederick E. Smith’s 1956 novel “633 Squadron” was based on his wartime experiences in the RAF (as an air gunner I think) and was fairly accurate.
    However the 1964 film version had a simplified and “Hollywoodised” plot to ensure success at the US box office. In particular the British Wing Commander Roy Grenville became Ex – Eagle Squadron American pilot Roy Grant who was played by Cliff Robertson ,then the Brad Pitt of his day following his starring role in “PT -109”. Erik Bergman was similarly played by the Greek American actor George Chakiris who was also a hot property.

    These casting decisions might have annoyed some people but they ensured the film’s success at the US box office.

    Five years later the producers of “Battle of Britain” avoided casting any American actors on the grounds of accuracy. The result was that the film was the most successful production at the UK box office that year (and was also a success in W Germany) but it bombed everywhere else and made a big loss for United Artists.

    A few years later the producers of “A Bridge Too Far” were forced to emphasise the US role in “Operation Market Garden” to ensure the film’s success.

    This illustrates the problem with British war films – to get them made you sometimes have to have Americans in the cast and sometimes a distorted storyline simply to ensure their commerical success.

    Mention was made earlier of “Thunderbirds”. All these Gerry Anderson productions were made in the UK but they tended to feature American voice artists (and later American actors) simply to make sure they would sell in the USA. This was the same reason that every episode of Brian Clemens “Thriller” always featured at least one American actor.

    So this is a potential problem for any “Dambusters” remake. It may only get made with American finance – and the price to pay for this may be American actors in the cast however inaccurate this may be.

    Colin

    in reply to: Lost TV RAF WWII drama #1415396
    colin.barron
    Participant

    I recall watching this in the 70’s too. I was initially unsure I would enjoy it as the early scenes of the chap on guard were slow and I could not see where the story was going, however as it went on I became more and more ‘sucked in’ to the story and I almost felt part of the crew myself by the end. It was a moving and somewhat disturbing tale, but I am not sure if the 70’s production values would hold up with a present day audience. As a youth in the 70’s I, like many others, was steeped in WW2 lore – Bomber Command, Battle of Britain etc and like most lad in those days knew relatives who had fought in the war. Most kids today don’t even know there was a war, never mind about Bomber Command! it would be nice to see it again though, perhaps on one of the satellite channels – there are enough of them showing ancient repeats, so you never know! Or how about a repeat of the 70’s series Pathfinders. Anyone recall that gem with its multidudinous repeats of the same Lanc landing again and again and…….. ๐Ÿ˜€

    The “Pathfinders” series was released on VHS by DD Video a few years ago and may still be available. I too remember “The Brylcreem Boys” . No warbirds were used in the production but near the start I remember a shot of an RAF vehicle driving across the tarmac of an airfield. The shot was framed by the engine nacelle,wing and and undercarriage of a Lancaster. I think this shot was achieved using a foreground miniature.

    Colin

    in reply to: Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss #1417309
    colin.barron
    Participant

    Guy Gibson’s Correct Age

    In various postings I have seen Guy Gibson’s age at the time of the Dam’s raid being given as 23 or 25. I always thought it was 24 so I decided to check out this fact.

    According to Richard Morris’s book “Guy Gibson” he was born on 12th August 1918 which means he was 24 at the time of the Dams raid and 26 at the time of his death in September 1944.

    Colin

    in reply to: Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss #1417439
    colin.barron
    Participant

    A lot of postings have suggested that the Lancs will be created with either CGI or models. In fact they will probably use both methods. For example a lot of people believe most of the ship shots in “Titanic” were created with CGI. In fact most of them were created using an enormous highly detailed model which was shot with motion control photography.

    The figures on the deck,funnel smoke,sea and sky were then added with CGI.

    For ground scenes the producers may have to create some full scale non flying replica Lancs ,perhaps taxiable with running engines (quite expensive to do but quite possible). For “Memphis Belle” the replica builders Feggans Brown (who did the replica Spits for “Piece of Cake”) were originally going to build a single full scale B-17 for a crash scene. In the end they only had to build a tail section.

    Colin

    in reply to: The Longest Day – aircraft #1419494
    colin.barron
    Participant

    I have an article somewhere about the making of “The Longest Day”. I believe the two Nords were sourced in France. They may have been the very same ones which appeared in “633 Squadron”.

    in reply to: Film stars #1422019
    colin.barron
    Participant

    not quite related, but does anyone know what the turboprop was that u see taking off in Moonraker. Sounds like its got Rolls Royce Darts, its confused me for ages?

    Yes it was a Lockheed Electra (Allison turboprops not RR Darts). However when you see Bond’s view (through the telescope) of the aircraft with “Drax Air Cargo” written on the side it is actually a large model. I have seen the model in question at an exhibition.

    Colin

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 208 total)