Thanks Errol. I think the Waikato Mounted Rifles were indeed Territorials in thsoe days. I will have to send off a request and find out if his records did survive or not. We have neevr bothered after hearing what that lady said, but I guess there’s no harm in asking.

Cheers
Dave

This is indeed very sad. He was a good bloke, I alwys enjoyed reading his posts. My condoldences to his family and friends.

John, you are clearly the one who needs to chill mate.

Dave…
Another outburst?

Er, actually no. Just a simple comment.

As we’ve discussed before.. “Hollywood” does not represent the official position of the US Government or the people of the United States.

Where did I say it does? To reword what I said, making it simpler so you can keep up, film companies do vast amounts of market research and supposedly think they know the target audience and what they want. My comment was that they think the people of the USA don’t care if history is twisted, embellished and faked. Sorry, it must be a language barrier, but I think you misinterpretted me. I was commenting on the studios, not the people.

Last I heard, “Hollywood” people say they make more money from foreign markets than America

Well it is obvious that they would. When it’s America’s viewing population versus the movie going public of the rest of the world, there will be much more money in foreign sales for many reasons. These include the fact that the Hollywood film industry dominates the world distribution industry. It has the biggest market share in most English speaking countries and many more besides. The studios also own the promotional tools such as film magazines, newspapers, and of course the cinema complexes themselves. Then there are aftermarket sales such as video rentals, merchandise and DVD sales. Many big budget films do not break even at the box office these days, but make their millions later in rentals and DVD sales.

Local film industries in countries foreign to your own are somewhat smothered by US input. Whether that’s good or bad or whatever does not matter, it’s certainly going to be good for Hollywood. Even big studios like Universal when based in Europe (as it used to be for a while) is still thought of as a “Hollywood” studio. That’s where their money comes from and goes to. Hollywood is not a place where films are made, it is a bank for financing films and studio owner’s dreams.

Our NZ own film industry can make films written by, acted by and made by Kiwis, but to be a success worldwide it has to rely on Hollywood input, ie money, in order to get it’s films out to Hollywood owned cinema chains. Smaller films may not need their money to get made, it’s all in getting screened that Hollywood comes in. That’s why so many NZ films now go to, and many win, big film festivals, so a Hollywood studio will buy distribution rights.

Basically, Hollywood has the world industry pretty much sewn up and eating out of the palms of their hands. They are like that simply because they are the ones who thoguht of it first. Good on them, I have no problem with that.

So, you’ll see why a Hollywood film makes more overseas? Because maybe 60 countries or more show it in Hollywood-owned cinemas, and they run publicity in Hollywood conglomerate (like Newsgroup) owned publications, and then there’s the rental market and DVD sales, all filtering back to Hollywood. Simple economics. Hollywood is a bank with global interests.

The film industry “(generically known as “Hollywood”) is out to make a buck (and pound, peso, yen and euro) so they are going to add love interests in films.

Fine if it’s fiction or whatever. But in a film purporting to be a true story, if the love interest is untrue and out of historical context. it’s totally unnecessary. Not everything in life revolves around getting your end away.

Remember not everyone is an aviation history buff.

I know that. I also know not everyone likes chick flicks either. If a film is being made about aviation history, it does not need to be turned into a chick flick too to get the women watching. Most have enough sense to watch a true story with their husbands, boyfriends etc or whatever and enjoy it for what it is, without embellishing it with some sideline love story for the ladies. If there are women who don’t have that capability, there’s plenty more romance films for them to watch (and the money still goes to Hollywood either way, maybe moreso if it means getting two DVD’s out of the shop!).

If they were, FlyPast would outsell The Sun, What Car?, Radio Times or Sheep Farmer Weekly (or whatever is the best selling magazine in NZ).

FlyPast does outsell those here. It’s the only one you mention available in this country as it happens.

The American people are not as stupid as you (and Hollywood) seem to believe they are…

I did not say they were stupid. Maybe it did not come over well but I was actually commenting on the fact that Hollywood thinks they know their audience. I beg to differ with them.

for every U-518 I can point to films where America is distorted historically…

If you refer to the U-571 debate I have no problem with that film. It’s fiction, pure and simple. Not meant to be true. It’s like an Alastair MacLean book/film. Good fun action film. I like it.

However regarding British films slighting US History, maybe so. You’re right. Not my problem.

I have seen a lot of American things that distort US history too, in films, and on TV. Things like forever stating Christopher Columbus was the man who discovered Amerca. What utter rubbish.

True, many films of a historical nature do change facts to suit them. It doesn’t matter where they are from, it happens. My stance is it doesn’t need to. I have studied this indepth and those films that get it right all the way are usually a heap better than those that make up subplots, fake romances, made-up characters and the likes.

Also remember that it was a US studio that bankrolled “The Battle of Britian” with nary a yank in sight. And American studios bankrolled the pro-UK epic, “Master & Commander” where a NZ-born man played a Captain in the RN….and it was an Australian director who decided to make the enemy ship French instead of American…as it was in the real incident O’Brien based his book on (since the book series is largly about the Napoleonic Wars, he didn’t see the need to switch the focus of the film to what we call The War of 1812).
And don’t forget all the pro-UK films made in the US prior to America entering WWII…to build public support for the US entering the war.

As I stated above, Hollywood is a bank. That’s what it’s for. It does not make it an American movie if Americans paid for it and it’s made wholly by Brits, or kiwis or whoever. It just makes it US-funded. I consider Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, the Indiana Jones films, the first three Star Wars films as British productions. They had mostly British crews, used British studios and locations, and largely British cast for the large part. They are US-funded British productions, with US directors. But dubbed “Hollywood-made” because the fatcats with the wallets associate themselves with that Californian town.

Remember too, it was UK producers (after US dollars I suspect) who cast Americans in 633 Squadron and the Great Jimmey Stewart film “No Highway in the Sky” and countless other films and TV series. (Gee, even the puppets in “Thunderbirds” were American…albeit with bad accents). Yes, they (Hollywood”) did imply that a well known British-designed, built, crewed and operated ocean liner sank in 1912…but I’m sure they didn’t reallly mean anything by it.

This is another thing that happens, and because of what I said above. In order to get your locally made story into worldwide distribution to make a bit of money back off it, you often have to cast American/Canadian actors in the leads simply to persuade the Hollywood machine to allow the film to be shown in their worldwide cinema distribution network. Simple as that. We’ve had many good films made here with NZ cast you that most countries will never have heard of. But our films with US leads you will have.

I don’t know if the UK public howled at the time about these casting decisions, but you seem to take every film as a personal slight to the Empire.

Me? I don’t give a toss mate. Where’d you get that from? I haven’t uttered anything about US casting on this thread have I? If I did it would be in light of maintaining historical accuracy only. Not because you think I hate your country. Sheesh!

To put it plainly…we Americans are smart enough to understand that “The Lord of the Rings” is NOT about your country….there are, I believe no trolls and elves there. WE KNOW IT’S JUST A FILM!

Well I’m very glad you’ve got that worked out. Thanks for sharing :rolleyes: :confused: :confused:

I understand if being from a small country you feel the need to verbally attack and belittle a larger one…but before you go off on another rant, please for your own sake, do as they do in Hollywood: get some therapy and chill. Dude. :D[/QUOTE]

You have to be one of the strangest people on this forum, I must say. When you’re talking aviation you’re a very interesting chap. When anyone mentions the slightest thing negative towards the USA you jump on the highest horse possible and start ranting about anti-Americanism and slighting people left, right and centre. Can you not simply put your over-protective nationalistic ferver aside for a moment, realise that not everything said against Hollywood is an attack on you and your country, and actually debate the issues at hand in a rational way?

You’re an intelligent man, so i hope you can.

Indeed.

Actually Alvar Liddell and John Snagge both made a number of “appearances” in wartime-set films and TV shows made up till the 1970’s. Snagge appeared in every radio episode of Dad’s Army, and Lidell was in one two. Lidell was also in Battle of Britain. Some of their ‘appearances’ were genuine archive broadcasts from the war, some were made especialy for the shows/films.

Had it not been for the BBC revealing their newsreaders, thanks to the Germans, they probably wouldn’t have got that work into old age.

Isn’t the American cinema/DVD market one of the biggest?

The Indian film industry is the largest in the world as it happens. But most of their films are in a style that do not appeal to westerners. I’d love to see more western-style films about India, and about their WWII efforts, whether made by them or Britain or whoever. It’s a wonderful country with such a history. But films with singing and dancing throughout do not appeal to me, wherever they’re from. I have seen one Indian WWII film, but it was about a British massacre of Indians, not about fighting the Japanese.

Jeff Wayne was in NZ just before the Spielberg film was released and he said he’d seen it and hated it. He reckoned it was nothing like the book. I haven’t seen it yet. As Cruise stars, I probably won’t bother.

Back on topic, is there any actual official website or online press releases about the Sir David Frost intention to remake this film? It may all be pie in the sky, like the proposed Mel Gibson remake. I hope it goes ahead though.