I think I remember reading somewhere that several former fighter pilots who flew in the battle of France, chief among them Paul Richey, actively tried to stop the series being shown, due to its highly controversial nature. Is this true?
Yep, that’s the one. Thanks Mark.
I’m afraid I don’t have the book. I only noticed the picture while browsing through it in my local Ian Allens.
Sounds interesting. Now if only someone had the money and resources to recreate the epic battle fought between William Barker and the mass formation of Fokkers, for which he won his medal, and his last handul of victories.
Well, I’m looking forward to it, even if 99% of people on the forum are not. So what if it’s not an accurate description of the aerial battles of the First World War? So what if the Nieuports and Fokkers look as though they’re being flown by Luke Skywalker? It’s a Hollywood movie, not a Discovery Channel special!! So long as you remember that, where’s the problem? :rolleyes:
I’m totally with you on this Daz. From all that I’ve seen it’s exactly what I’d expect it to be, and despite that I’m GLAD they made it. Accept it for what it is, pure entertainment. “Hell’s Angels” for the 21st century. As it is, there is as yet no UK distribution deal. So most of us may not even get to see it anyway, until the day it arrives on digital versatile.
“Fighting the Blue” and a three part series about the Battle of Britain that I would assume was made around the same time are both crammed with excellent outake footage from “Battle of Britain”, tons of it. Both are available from Acorn video. Their website address, http://www.acornmediauk.com.
Seen the trailer and it hasn’t put me off going to see it when it comes out, I’m looking forward to it in fact. To those who see it as those bloody yanks winning the war all by themselves again, I say get over it. That’s always been Hollywoods’ way since 1945’s notorious entry “Objective Burma”, and most recently of course “U571”. It has to remembered that the Hollywood machine make these as entertainment to make lots of money for chiefly American audiences, who in the main know only what they’re told unless they are students of history and knowledgable of the facts.
Neither does it matter to me that it has a plane nose diving into a Zeppelin like something out of an old pulp magazine from the 30s. I’m glad it does.
Lastly, it’s got to be better than bloody “Gunbus”, right!
One good reason to watch it, a few of the “real” stars of this movie……oh, and some actors.
One BIG problem with “Pearl Harbor” is that it’s a movie with an identity crisis. What exactly did it want to be? A love story? A historical epic? or action movie? Take the attack for example. Divided into two halves the first half went to extraordinary lengths to be as accurate as possible based on the real life accounts of survivors. The second half throws away the history books altogether and choses to resemble a video game based loosely on the true life exploits of Lts George Welch and Kenneth Taylor. The whole movie is like that. It gets things right some of the time and completely wrong most of the time. It perpetuates the Americans’ belief that the Battle of Britain with mass German daylight bombing raids continued right up until their entry into the war when, in fact, during 1941 the RAF was on the offensive. What would have made more sense would be to have had Ben Affleck shot down while on bomber escort.
Something I found irritating is that the film company went to enormous lengths to trace genuine A6M Zeros rather than T6 rebuilds and then paint them incorrectly. With a brief to make the attack scenes as historically accurate as possible this oversight doesn’t so much defeat that object as shoot it in the head!
And finally, on a point of logic, how did the dyslexic Rafe Mcawley manage to write all those flowery love letters to his girlfriend, in between scrapping with Messerschmitts?
Thanks for the pic BM. Yeah that’s the one. As Derek Piggott states in his book, “Bombing shots are always exciting”…..and dangerous too from the sound of it.
Seeing that picture of the mini SE5 from “You can’t win ’em all” reminded me of an old edition of “Clapperboard” from the 70s that covered the career of Derek Piggott. Lots of clips were shown, from “Blue Max”, “Darling Lili”, “Red Baron” and “You can’t win ’em all”, about which Derek talks about flying the aircraft through a fireball from an explosion set off on the ground and getting slightly cooked as a result.
A few years later I bought Derek’s autobiography “Delta Papa” where he talks about this incident some more. I remember the illustrations in the book too, including one of a burning “Fokker” on the ground from “Darling Lili” which left me determined to see this movie whenever it was to be shown on TV. I know critics panned it but I kinda liked it, despite all those tedious musical numbers.
I hope CGI does not completely replace the use of real aircraft in movies. Computer generated aircraft never QUITE look right, although the Helldivers in “King Kong” are an exception. I am however keeping my fingers crossed that the Computer assisted aircraft in the upcoming “Flyboys” doesn’t leave me questioning the authenticity of movement I got from say, “Pearl Harbor” for example.
Also on the subject of Peter Jacksons “Kong” remake I wonder how many of you knew that the movie was originally going to be made before the “Rings” trilogy with a script that opened in 1917 with a gigantic dogfight and ended with the hero attacking the Helldivers in a Sopwith Camel he finds outside a cinema!
As much as I liked the 2005 version, I would have LOVED to have seen that!
In “Tora Tora Tora” one of the “Zeros” is practically scraping the deck with one wing low during the strafing of the fibreglass P40 replicas. An incredible piece of flying.