Peter Jackson has been associated some time with an upcoming WWI film. I’m unsure if it’s purely supposition, desire on his part, or a real intention. I have heard rumours that it’ll involve aviation and this makes sense given his collection and passion for WWI planes. However I’ve also heard several sources say he plans a film about the NZ’ers in WWI. I don’t know if this is meant to be the same film. I know his company has recently restored genuine WWI ANZAC film for the nation.

With the WWI project/s and the Russian film, things are certainly going to be interesting if they happen. Of course he’s already committed to making The Lovely Bones in 2007. So if the Russian one is slotted for 2006 then it’ll be a while before the WWI epic arrives I’d think.

He’s still fighting in court to get his share of the $3 billion New Line has made from the Rings films – absolute rotters after all he did to make them that money!

Thanks for the explanation Mark.

So I was right about the Close Encounters connection (directors cut version that is).

However, a theme park ride based on real tragic air accidents (and I’m guessing sea disasters too) does not sit too well with me, despite the interest in supposed spooky goings on, I’m afraid.

Remaking old TV series or old films highlights not a lack of ideas in the film world, just a lack of financiers willing to fund something new when they know they can cash in on a ‘known brand’, no matter how much they desicrate the original.

On the other hand, if the original film was based upon a classic book or a true story, I can’t see any reason not to remake it if it is done well and is guaranteed to better the original. By that I mean better technology, maybe the addition of colour, much better acting (which lets face it, acting techniques for film and TV has come on in leaps and bounds since the 1960’s, especially British acting in films, much more natural). Also directorial input can be better than an original in many cases, there are so many new ideas these days in just the framing of film the evokes emotion in the audience better than the old static camera.

I see no problem with the use of cgi if it is done well. One remake soon to be released in December might be interesting from an aviation perspective – King Kong. Like the original, almost the entire film is being made within the confines of a studio, but unlike the original – which apparently remains a classic – cgi is extending the reality far beyond the plastercine monkey doll with a German helmet ever did. And, like Setter said, such remakes can resurrect extinct aircraft as this film is doing – I have seen some scenes involving the previously extinct aircraft (whatever it is) being used in King Kong. It is a full sized replica which will be balanced with a little cgi. It looks very real however, stunningly real in the scenes I have witnessed, due to care and planning and use of lighting and good cgi on the blue screen, etc.

It is not the inclusion of cgi that can hamper a film, it is how it is used. Some directors can do it very well, others can’t. The director of Pearl Harbor is a chump and well known for bad films. He did it wrong (thru and thru with that film) but though I have not seen The Aviator but I have not heard any complaints about the cgi aircraft in it. See, good director, good film.

Frankly, I don’t want to see a straight remake of Battle of Britain, or The Dambusters, or the Flying Tigers, or any of those classics – whether they’re good or bad. Retelling of a story already told well is pointless. I’d much rather see other true stories told that have never made it to film, perhaps even those that have not made it into print. There is so much scope in the world of aviation films, but many cinema going people must think the only thing Bomber Command did was bomb some dams.

I’d rather see a new film, maybe about the Allied aerial defence and defeat at Singapore, or a decent film (as few are) about the Pacific campaign (although Spielberg and Clint Eastwood are currently trying to fill that gap), or a film following a Bomber Command crew, etc.

Now, as for supposed upcoming projects, what’s happening with the film announced at last year’s Warbirds Over Wanaka? It is an innovative (for film) true story about Russian woman fighter pilots in WWII. Has anyone heard more on this project? Anyone know the working title? Director? The only thing announced then was the Brietling fighter team were to regroup for the flying and I’ve heard it is to be made in NZ.

Hmmm, there is already a popular Spitfire fashion label that makes clothing it seems according to many websites from all over the world. They design gear for the skater and hip-hop type, and surf and beach wear. If this guy starts producing Spitfire tweeds, won’t people get confused??? Wearing tweeds to the beach (or anywhere for that matter) is not cool.

Actually that brand has a logo called ‘Spitfire charred remains’ it seems! Please do not wear that one to an airshow! http://www.nosocksplease.co.uk/brand/spitfire/

And when they say they will make glasses, for drinking the Spitfire ale form? Or for shading the eyes in the morning after?

I find these crash sites that are still there in the open for all to visit very bizarre I’m afraid. It does not seem right to me. The idea that a crashed plane just lies in someone’s paddock does not sit right with me – I cannot get my head around it actualy.

I mean, I find much like if there had been a car accident where everyone onboard was killed, taken away and buried, but the authorities have just gone away and left the burned out, mashed up car wreck on the side of the road because they’ve never bothered clearing up the mess. Why not?

After the war much time and money was spent on finding and relocating bodies, scrapping weaponry and rebuilding society ans structures. But why did no-one take the time to pick up this sort of wreckage? Surely local people wouldn’t have preferred to have it there, reminding them of the war everytime they saw it? I mean, that place, and other’s I’ve seen photos of, are clearly not inaccessable. Someone could have done something. Why didn’t they? Why were these wrecks not removed and melted down, or whatever?

I could understand it if it were in steep hilly bush country where no-one could see it or get to it (like a few NZ wrecks), but when people can go online and get directions and then stroll along for a visit, hmmm. (No offence intended Steve, not having a dig at you)

I simply don’t understand and would very much be interested in opinions and explanations toget my head around this bizarre act.

I am not saying it is wrong or anything, just I feel uneasy about the fact that it seems to me these sites are an unfinished job. The fact that they are slowly rotting and rusting over the years that they litter the countryside, and that some people may come along and further desicrate the wreckage, steal from it, and in the ebay age even profit from it,

Personally, I think it’s time to bring such wreckage in from the hilltops. Surely that is the respectful thing to do. Those men who died shouldn’t be remembered simply for the crash that killed them. That’s macabre.

As for museums getting such wrecks, I seriously doubt any museum would warrant wasting display space for a wreck as badly damaged as that shown, as there is little reconisable there for the average museum goer to relate to. But at least if such wreckage was put into proper museum storage in boxes for future reference and maybe use in restorations, it’d be better for the world at large, would it not?

Posts 156/185/189 and 190 suddenly triggered the old grey cells….many years ago there was a TV documentary on ag-pilots in Africa (IIRC), who got bored with the relative tedium of crop spraying.

Nearby was a lake or river – very still, very calm water.

One eveing (no doubt after a beer) they were seeing just how low they could get above thw water when one of them actually skimmed the surface with his mainwheels. Fortunately he didn’t dip his tyres in too deeply, or he would have instantly nosed over into the wet stuff. Having done it once, and got away with it, he repeated it, then they all tried, and before long found it was relatively “easy” 😮 to “water ski” their Agcats/Agtruks etc in this way. I remember camera shots showing the planes skimming down the river/canal/lake surface raising spray from their wheel for maybe 50 – 75 yrds at a time

Anyone else remember the documentary – given it’s nature it was probably shown on the then relatively obscure C4 (or BBC2)?

Paul F

Not only do I remember it, I have a copy (or at least it should be in my late Dad’s collection, I borrowed and watched it about a year ago). It was called “The Topdressers” and was a BBC production from memory. It focused on a Kiwi pilot and a few Brits in Africa. Yes, it featured some stunning flying shots, especially those where they were skipping the canal with their tires.