XN923But look how Spielberg bounced back after that – Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET…..!!!
As long as he doesn’t have the equivalent of The Phantom Menace…
XN923Revisionism is, thanks to hollywood and pop history, becoming more and more prevalent and more and more indistinguishable from what we may regard as historical ‘truth’ or ‘fact’.
I agree about the quality of discussion in this thread, it’s quite refreshing, especially at this time in the morning!
On the subject of revisionism and pop history being prevalent I agree – but hasn’t this been the case at many other times in history? How many people got their first experience of, e.g. the 100 years war, the Roman Empire or ancient Scottish dynasties from Shakespeare’s ‘histories’??
I think the trick is to distinguish the genuine revisionism (which is just attempting to move the field of historical knowledge on) from the pop history attempting to ape this honourable practice – e.g. Roland Huntford’s despicable books about Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen. Despite styling himself as an academic, Huntford was a journalist and valued anecdote and personal opinion more highly than evidence.
Even in genuine histories, opinion creeps in and becomes regarded as orthodoxy. Cf. Cornelius Ryan’s three excellent tomes on the end of the war in Europe. In these he refers only to primary sources and only cites an event if it is mentioned by two or more sources – laudable methodology. However, I noticed the benefit of hindsight creeping in on a lot of occasions. For example, in ‘A Bridge Too Far’ he is critical of the RAF’s policy of only attacking pre-agreed targets and only striking when called upon to do so. The USAAF, he argues, were authorised to attack targets of opportunity, and this could have saved a number of allied lives and increased the chances of success of the operation. However, he fails to mention that this policy of attacking targets of opportunity has led to significant numbers of ‘friendly fire’ incidents in the second world war and since. I’m tempted to quote Henry Ford, but instead I think I’ll quote Alexander Pope – ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.
XN923I liked it. The flying scenes were pretty good IMHO. And dinosaurs! Fighting a giant ape! What more could you want? Not like you need a Tom Stoppard script with a film like this!
I watched the original a couple of days after seeing the Peter Jackson version and it really is incredibly close in many ways. A real homage, some sequences are pretty much frame-for-frame, word-for-word while adding emotional depth where it adds something and whizz-bang special effects all over the shop. Great stuff. Complete popcorn fluff, but great nonetheless. If you want Chekhov, go see Chekhov.
XN923Ever get the feeling that Canada is really good at classic aircraft preservation? I think we could learn a few lessons here in Blighty.
XN923My understanding of ‘revisionism’ is the desire to revisit historical orthodoxies in the light of the perceived historical bias of that orthodoxy. The problem with history is that it always says as much about the time in which it is written as it does about the time about which it is writing. Therefore while there is a constant need to revisit historical texts and accepted versions of events, there is a danger that the new version will be just as flawed as the old.
I suppose an example would be the Eurocentric view of exploration, which deserves countering by adding the Far Eastern and South American experience. Other examples are, say, the Victorian view of the nation of Britain as Saxon in origin which had to be reversed to emphasise the Norman influence when we found ourselves at war with Germany. One might say we are subject to a policitically motivated revisionist tendency to review the experiences of both world wars, both on the fringes of academia and in popular culture, suggesting that the US was primarily responsible for victory in both conflicts. (See numerous other threads on e.g. Saving Private Ryan, Peal Harbor etc. etc. – and reference a quip I heard on The Simpsons last week where a stereotypical Frenchman is heard to say ‘let us mock the country that saved us from the Germans – twice’)
It’s fair to suggest then that if current views of the second world war are perceived to be tainted by the propaganda, the need to view the conflict in a certain way, that was issued during and after the conflict there is a purpose for a revisionist exploration of the conflict.
In my view the problem with revisionism is that it seems to have become a postmodern fad, popularly used to destroy the reputations of ‘heroes’ – Robert Falcon Scott, Douglas Bader and Churchill have all been the victims of this brand of revisionism to some degree or another.
So, revising the Dam Busters to show its ‘true’ benefits, i.e. a massive morale boost and reveal its supposed failings – i.e. a lot of crews died, as did a lot of allied PoWs while the raid didn’t have the decisive effect it was reported to have had* – would be valid. Using the exercise to unfairly assasinate the character of Guy Gibson would not.
*Although I still think that knocking out the hydro-electric power for a month and a half leading to the loss of production during that time, plus the need to use resources and manpower to rebuild the dams and no doubt heavily boost the anti aircraft defences of the area, while not decisive (what single raid is?) was a massive achievement at that time.
XN923Some interesting suggestions here… I must admit I’m stumped as finding something that says what the programme is about succinctly as well as expressing the fact that these were young blokes who died in their thousands for an honourable cause, yet undoubtedly caused untold destruction and were regarded on the ground as airborne terrorists is… well, inexpressible. Something like ‘Massacre by moonlight’ jumped almost instantly to mind (and expresses both sides) but sounds awfully harsh.
Tricky one – good luck to you!
XN923Is that with or without the important stuff hanging under the wings?;)
I, too, was under the impression that, in service, the Sea Vixen was not supersonic, in level flight – hence my quip about the Lightnings…Flood
Probably right… but when the DH110 came out supersonic in a dive seemed to be good enough. As long as it could plant some great big sonic booms on the crowd line it’s good enough for me too. Anyone happen to know what Mach 1 is at 20,000 feet?
Frankly I’d be surprised if in some conditions and altitudes an unloaded FAW1 couldn’t have gone supersonic in level flight, given that the DH110 prototypes did in a shallow dive with only just over half the thrust of the production model and no appreciable difference in weight.
XN923It’s the Hawker Hunter aviation Buccaneer S2B G-HHAA/XX885. It has been approved for flight on the UK civil register, the first aircraft in the ‘complex’ category to do so.
HHA say’ We are currently considering very hard whether to fly the Buccaneer at some UK airshows next year. It all depends what demand would be like and the likely revenue prospects for the aircraft, since as you can imagine, it is exceedingly expensive to operate. The actual display costs would have to be borne by the air display organisers.
So if you want to see the Buccaneer fly at UK airshows, lobby the various airshow organisers. ‘
There was the thread on here a few weeks ago, try searching the site for it.
XN923Despite being a lifelong aficionado of the products of de Havilland, I feel it only fair to point out that the Sea Vixen was only supersonic downhill.
Concorde apart, especially as it was a government sponsored programme, I have my doubts if we will ever see a civilian-owned and operated aircraft capable of supersonic speed in level flight.
According to the Barry Jones book ‘De Havilland twin-boom fighters’:
Sea level = Mach 0.95
20,000ft = Mach 1.02
…Or am I just being pedantic here??
XN923I think the Kent map was produced by the Kent Messenger local newspaper, therefore it might be worth looking for centemporary Buckinghamshire local papers to see if there is anything comparable.
I saw the KM map a little while ago and was shocked at how many of the things there were.
XN923Wow! Congratulations to her owners and those involved.
Forgive my ignorance but what Mark of ‘Spitfire’ is this Seafire most closley linked too? I’m assuming thats a Merlin?
Im not too up on Seafires 😮 Apologies.
Yes, the closest Spitfire relative of the Seafire XV is probably the MkXII, although unlike many Seafires the XV draws its heritage more directly from previous Seafires rather than being a converted Spit. It was basically a Seafire Mk III fuselage (Spit Mk V equivalent) coverted to take a ‘short’ Griffon, though unlike the Spitfire XII the Seafire XV had symmetrical radiator/oil cooler layout.
It was developed into the XVII which had a low back fuselage and other improvements such as strengthened undercarriage.
XN923`scuse my ignorance, but why were high and low back Spitfires made at the same time? (err – if they actually were).
Low back griffon for me please. With contra props.
There was some crossover, it depends on the development history of the model in question. Also, some low backs (like the MkXVIII) suffered stability problems in testing because of the lower lateral area so other ‘high back’ marks like the mk21 continued to be built.
Also, you had some later versions of high back marks like the IX and XVI which were built as low backs.
XN923Another vote for the PRXIX here! Fastest piston engined aircraft recorded – Mach 0.94!!!!!!!
And for seconds, Seafire MkXVII please. The short Griffon and proper eliptical wings really are unique, it’s the best looking of the low backs (and arguably best performing as well.
MkXIIs are a sight too, perhaps it’s having seen too many pictures of them but MkIs, Vs and IXs just look so… ordinary. (Or should that be ‘classic’?)
XN923Why do Russian subs look so more hydrodynamically advanced than US/UK boats? With those teardrop hulls and streamlined conning towers they look potentially much faster, though I imagine if it were that easy everyone would design them that way. Any thoughts?
XN923Looks like they are definitely going ahead with the V/STOL JSFs then… I spoke to a naval officer in October and he said that they were at that stage still unsure whether they were getting the V/STOL or conventional JSFs.
It looks like the most sensible options have been chosen. I think the V/STOL capability is very useful, but it’s good that the ships will be able to operate conventional aircraft should the need arise.
Sign In
