Come on, it can’t be accurate anyway, everyone knows MvR was a raging homosexual who beat up his dog!

Well that’s interesting. I always thought MvR’s dog was a raging homosexual who was actually the pilot of the Dr1, because MvR was too busy trying to lick his nether regions….

PS: His own that is, not the dog’s..

I wonder if what we’re saying and/or recognising is that Richtofen was the epitome of a ‘technical pilot’, in that he used his aircraft in the optimum way to destroy as many enemy aircraft as possible. Flying for the sheer joy of flying was of no interest to him: he was a soldier of the Fatherland, and he had a job to do. Aerobatics, flamboyance and ‘stunting’ did not get the job done.

In short, a professional soldier.

Well look folks, let’s bring the thread back on track……watch the film and either enjoy it or leave the theatre and vomit. Here’s a new angle: this will be one film subject where there’s no way the film makers can insert a helicopter or a martial arts fight in slow motion!

“Pearl Harbour” was an insult to anyone with an IQ above.375

However, making lousy films that just happen to deal with a subject we all hold dear is not a crime. Lets not forget the reason young men and women sacrificed their lives all those years ago was to uphold the right to free speech.

I’m a firefighter. I wish I could put into words the nauseating embarrasment I felt when I saw ‘Backdraft’ and ‘Ladder 49’. What a diabolical waste of the camerman’s time! But that’s free speech….(so help me)

I find it interesting that the folks who are concerned with the historical accuracy of ‘The Red Baron’ haven’t commented on the fact that he was never actually known by that nickname. The Germans called him The Red Battle Flier, and the Allies referred to him as “the Bloody Red Baron” or the “Jolly Red Baron”.

Look, lets not get too uptight about a film that will inevitably disappear into the bargain section of the video shop within 6 months. To quote Goshawk Squadron: “Relax and enjoy your problem”

Ahhh yes, the age old question on historical fact versus box office dollars! I reckon the best way to deal with the film, be it accurate or fanciful, is to relax and enjoy your problem. Be happy that someone has spent the considerable time and money to devote reels of celluloid to the subject of WW1 aviation. Let’s face it, it’s not exactly a subject up there with The Matrix or Batman, is it?

“Young people” are not going to learn from video and film alone. In today’s throw away society they will have forgotten about the subject matter 10 minutes after leaving the cinema, so the worry that the true history of WW1, BE2c’s, Richtofen et al will be tainted by a twisted screenplay is a mute point. If the film does in fact awaken a sleeping desire to know more, then they will have to turn to the methods of old: books! And thus, they will learn the ‘truth’. (and maybe we will find ourselves with a new generation of WW1 amateur historians!!!)