This idea surfaces here from time to time.

I suggest you re-read the book.

Not a great deal happens. All the interest is in being inside the heads of the characters and Deighton’s superb writing style.

I’d rather the movie moguls left that one alone.

Moggy

Good point, but the fact it shows both sides of the story gives the basic framework for a quite balanced view, and as with most books the depth is normally left out of the screenplay (witness Piece of Cake and the mostly pathetic attempts at turning Tom Clancy and Stephen King novels into films). If handled well the film could stand as a work in it’s own right so long as it doesn’t pretend to be a faithful adaptation of the novel.

The most we can ever hope for in a film is an accurate and sympathetic portrayal of people and events, with some nice footage of aircraft. Pearl Harbo(u)r was some nice flying spoilt by a story wasn’t it?

JC
Isn’t wine brilliant!!

Papa Lima, how about:

Unknown airfield with Cessna 150 circling, please state location.

That one always makes me grin 🙂

JC

Sorry Kev – I’m afraid I’m going have to agree with you 🙂

JC
Mellow…..

Ok, as is my want I’ve sat back and watched from a safe distance.

My view? A “heritage” is only borne from a huge amount of external influence, so in order to appreciate a particular “heritage” surely one should acknowledge that which has driven it?

So in the case of the UK preservation scene there is plenty of room for foreign input – whether it be 8th Air Force, Luftwaffe, SAC or whatever the Soviet Air was known as.
Our home grown aircraft always formed part of a global picture – surely thier adversaries and allies deserve a place alongside them?

The same argument applies to the preservation scene in the US, Australia, Mainland Europe – wherever enthusiasts want to appreciate aviation.

There is never anything to be gained from tunnel vision – you will miss a lot of interesting scenery 🙂

What is being proposed (the focus on the home industry) runs the risk of people having only one view of histrory without being encouraged to seek alternative views.

JC

Come back CrazyMainer – I appreciated you!

From my point of view, if you’ve got the resources to own and operate an aircraft like this (whatever continent you’re on) surely the small amount extra effort to make it authentic has got to be worth it. If a job is worth doing, it’s worth doing well.

The errors here give an impression of someone who (for the sake of argument) has a Spitfire because someone told them it was cool and they could afford it, without an appreciation of what it actually represents. This may be harsh and entirely untrue of the supposed individual, but as I said that’s the impression it gives.

Alternatively if said owner wants the machine red with green spots that’s his/her choice, but an authentic scheme (if chosen) should be correct out of respect for the aircrew that the machine represents (and careless errors could be be seen as disrespectful in some quarters).

I’d be as critical of a UK based US warbird showing the same inaccuracies!

JC

60’s and early 70’s for me – Hunters, Lightnings, Buccaneers, Phantoms, Victors and Vulcans.

JC
Looks like I’m into Cold War jets then!

Having seen Lightnings do a fast pass and climb at airshows, 90 secs to 35000 feet is a pretty good way of putting it.

I have this memory of a Lightning coming in low and fast along the crowd line, standing on it’s tail and just going straight up between some clouds until it was out of sight. It had quite an effect on a 12(ish) year old 🙂 Would have been at Mildenhall or
Coltishall mid to late seventies.

JC