Now, that’s just boasting…;)
I thought this was an interesting article of great relevance to this thread, and some of the specific posts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8086451/Is-the-judicious-use-of-force-really-torture.html
Simply applying the inflationary increase the 1968 film would now cost about £130 million to make. But filming costs have exceeded inflationary increases so the figure mentioned above would probably cover the negative costs of the film only. My guess, although I’m a bit rusty, would be £250/300 million to put the require value on the screen with a cast to guarantee the box office.
And the return on that over 5 years?………..
Brilliant – thanks! Now I AM interested in IT……….I missed Daz’s small wink under the poster…:)
If it was going to be made it should have been planned to coincide with all the BoB 70th Anniversary activity this year. The costs will be extravagantly high, if it is to be worthwhile and I doubt the investors will see their money back for a long time. Seems madness to me…………..
Well I for one hope you are right and hope the total is reached at the end of the month.
CD – there doesn’t seem to be anybody now even questioning what is going on in Afghanistan?
Oh, really.:confused: My impression was the exact opposite………..I don’t think the majority of the population want anybody fighting anywhere, do they. Most have no idea why we are there, because the last government hardly made the effort to make the case, and the current government isn’t doing much better.
CD – there doesn’t seem to be anybody now even questioning what is going on in Afghanistan?
Oh, really.:confused: My impression was the exact opposite………..I don’t think the majority of the population want anybody fighting anywhere, do they. Most have no idea why we are there, because the last government hardly made the effort to make the case, and the current government isn’t doing much better.
Blimey, Hurn…that’s encouraging! And then IF they reach the target is the pressure off until the New year? They need about a million a year, don’t they, for all the running and maintenance costs?
Err, thanks Daz, but no thanks…. – so, what’s it doing in Historic Aviation then??
Thank you – it just shows how damaging ill-informed comment can be. But all of this is looking more academic by the day as my calendar is currently showing 26th October. Five days to go…………………:(
At the beginning of this thread IT sounded interesting – I’m not so sure now……:confused:
My understanding is that German bombs missed their industrial targets and fell in error on civilian areas of East London, which gave Churchill his raison d’etre to strike the German capital. At that time – mid-1940 – Hitler had no desire to bomb UK cities did he? He intended to invade and capture with as little damage as possible to industrial and civilian infrastructure.
I don’t know how comprehensive this is but it seems a useful list.
I think you are correct in making that distinction, within certain criteria. I do not regard the disinformation of wartime statistics as anything to get over-exited about. It has been going on for centuries and is part of the conduct of war.
If wikileaks was a dispassionate exercise in objectivity it would be one thing but it is simple political mischief making. Mr Assange will no doubt spend the next few months/years struggling to hide from officialdom, but I think he might be forgotten in a few months time.
I think you are correct in making that distinction, within certain criteria. I do not regard the disinformation of wartime statistics as anything to get over-exited about. It has been going on for centuries and is part of the conduct of war.
If wikileaks was a dispassionate exercise in objectivity it would be one thing but it is simple political mischief making. Mr Assange will no doubt spend the next few months/years struggling to hide from officialdom, but I think he might be forgotten in a few months time.