I absolutely love this film. See, Michael Bay, THIS is how to do it if you want to make a romantic war film, rather than the cinematic travesty that is Pearl Harbor. Nuff respect, you can blow sh*t up like nobody else, but…..!!
Done on a tiny fraction of PH’s budget, the effect is so, so, so much better, despite the limitations of money and resources.
Fantastic.
That’s looks good. I wish they sold flims like that here in the middle of nowhere.
I absolutely love this film. See, Michael Bay, THIS is how to do it if you want to make a romantic war film, rather than the cinematic travesty that is Pearl Harbor. Nuff respect, you can blow sh*t up like nobody else, but…..!!
Done on a tiny fraction of PH’s budget, the effect is so, so, so much better, despite the limitations of money and resources.
Fantastic.
That’s looks good. I wish they sold flims like that here in the middle of nowhere.
Nice Pictures Anna 😀 😀 😀 Mark 😀
Some of my early stuff, from the longest continuous serving aircraft Sqn in the world. 😉
Also Quick Quiz 😮 –
Which one of this aircraft was used to win the first VC for Air to Air Combat between aircraft. Name of the Pilot as well, please.
and
Which one had its pilot fall out of the cockpit in flight, what problem did he have and was trying to solve when he fell out and how did the problem save his life, its quite a strange story this one. 😉
I have no idea……….LOL. Give me a couple of years and I may be able to give you an answer 😀 😀 😀 Mark 😀
Some of my early stuff, from the longest continuous serving aircraft Sqn in the world. 😉
Also Quick Quiz 😮 –
Which one of this aircraft was used to win the first VC for Air to Air Combat between aircraft. Name of the Pilot as well, please.
and
Which one had its pilot fall out of the cockpit in flight, what problem did he have and was trying to solve when he fell out and how did the problem save his life, its quite a strange story this one. 😉
I have no idea……….LOL. Give me a couple of years and I may be able to give you an answer 😀 😀 😀 Mark 😀
you have a serious talent !!! very very nice!!!
Thanks Hurrifan…..I’m glad you like it 😉 Mark 😀 😀 😀
you have a serious talent !!! very very nice!!!
Thanks Hurrifan…..I’m glad you like it 😉 Mark 😀 😀 😀
So was Hitler a “good” person or “bad” person in your opinion? What about Bin Laden? Or Saddam? What about Bush?
As for Indian independence and Vietnam, what caused those defeats for England and the US was a lack of will by the polticians. What if 10 Downing Street or the Viceroy unleashed the army on the Indians? What would have Gandhi done then for independence. Anyway Gandhi didn’t completely pull it of. India split into Muslim and Hindu nations and he was shot. India and Paksitian have fought three wars with each other and still have border clashes from time to time. Only the threat of nuclear attack keep them at bay. So where’s the peace?
When the 1968 Tet Offensive failed General Giap and Ho Chi Minh thought they had failed but when they saw the American media covering the anti-war movement they realized they didn’t have to win on the battlefield to win the war. Had we invaded North Vietnam and bombed the hell out of Hanoi, in other words if we fought total war Vietnam would have just been another notch on our gun.
England and Ireland have been fighting each other off and on for about what 500 years? Give or take a decade and only now have both sides sat down and talked. After about 500 years of fighting i’m sure both sides were sick of it by now.
I think they were/are all bad (I don’t quite know about George Bush yet) but I’m certain that they would believe that they were good and we were bad. So, the point that I’m trying to put forward is that there is no good or bad as such, it’s just how we see ourselves and others.
So was Hitler a “good” person or “bad” person in your opinion? What about Bin Laden? Or Saddam? What about Bush?
As for Indian independence and Vietnam, what caused those defeats for England and the US was a lack of will by the polticians. What if 10 Downing Street or the Viceroy unleashed the army on the Indians? What would have Gandhi done then for independence. Anyway Gandhi didn’t completely pull it of. India split into Muslim and Hindu nations and he was shot. India and Paksitian have fought three wars with each other and still have border clashes from time to time. Only the threat of nuclear attack keep them at bay. So where’s the peace?
When the 1968 Tet Offensive failed General Giap and Ho Chi Minh thought they had failed but when they saw the American media covering the anti-war movement they realized they didn’t have to win on the battlefield to win the war. Had we invaded North Vietnam and bombed the hell out of Hanoi, in other words if we fought total war Vietnam would have just been another notch on our gun.
England and Ireland have been fighting each other off and on for about what 500 years? Give or take a decade and only now have both sides sat down and talked. After about 500 years of fighting i’m sure both sides were sick of it by now.
I think they were/are all bad (I don’t quite know about George Bush yet) but I’m certain that they would believe that they were good and we were bad. So, the point that I’m trying to put forward is that there is no good or bad as such, it’s just how we see ourselves and others.
I like that 😀 😀 😀 Mark 😀 I can never seem to get the props on my spitfire’s to look ‘right’ 😀 😀 😀
I like that 😀 😀 😀 Mark 😀 I can never seem to get the props on my spitfire’s to look ‘right’ 😀 😀 😀
😉 😉 😉 Mark 😀
😉 😉 😉 Mark 😀
Suflanker, there are ways of fighting other than the use of violence; Gandhi always said he believed in fighting but he would not use violence – he defeated the British Empire without having to fire a shot. Think about it.
The USA despite all their firepower were defeated in Vietnam by a population with little more than second hand and second rate weapons; and in the long run are likely to be defeated Iraq.
So do violence and agression really work? does the stongest always win?
For a large part of my life the British Army were locking horns with the IRA – people were dying almost daily. Then the Peace Process started, people talked, ceasefires began. Its not perfect there’s still mistrust but Ulsters ecconomy is now booming and people don’t fear for their lives everyday.
Lessons for us all here……….
Steve.
Some very good points you have there Steve 😉
It occurs to me that the Americans are only interested in war if:
1) They suffer a huge defeat and want to get revenge (eg. Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc).
Or
2) They have something to gain (eg. The oil in Iraq – which seems common reasoning in Britain).
The terrorists during 9/11 had weapons. If the security at the airports was tight enough in the first place, these weapons would probably never have made it on board. However, those weapons did, and it’s ironic that America complains about that. As someone said above……….they had it coming.
If a passenger came up to me with a knife in his hand lugguage, I’d be thinking “what on Earth would he want that in the cabin for, but American security let them through.
This goes back to my earlier post on over-confidence in a countries abilities.
Mark.
Suflanker, there are ways of fighting other than the use of violence; Gandhi always said he believed in fighting but he would not use violence – he defeated the British Empire without having to fire a shot. Think about it.
The USA despite all their firepower were defeated in Vietnam by a population with little more than second hand and second rate weapons; and in the long run are likely to be defeated Iraq.
So do violence and agression really work? does the stongest always win?
For a large part of my life the British Army were locking horns with the IRA – people were dying almost daily. Then the Peace Process started, people talked, ceasefires began. Its not perfect there’s still mistrust but Ulsters ecconomy is now booming and people don’t fear for their lives everyday.
Lessons for us all here……….
Steve.
Some very good points you have there Steve 😉
It occurs to me that the Americans are only interested in war if:
1) They suffer a huge defeat and want to get revenge (eg. Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc).
Or
2) They have something to gain (eg. The oil in Iraq – which seems common reasoning in Britain).
The terrorists during 9/11 had weapons. If the security at the airports was tight enough in the first place, these weapons would probably never have made it on board. However, those weapons did, and it’s ironic that America complains about that. As someone said above……….they had it coming.
If a passenger came up to me with a knife in his hand lugguage, I’d be thinking “what on Earth would he want that in the cabin for, but American security let them through.
This goes back to my earlier post on over-confidence in a countries abilities.
Mark.