PDA

View Full Version : Should the "Battle of Britain" movie be filmed again?


hardhatter
16th Oct 2008, 08:21
Hornet's nest, I know, but I am curious:

should the good old Battle of Britain movie, which probably so many of you know, love and know the script by heart, be remade to a more modern version?

Taking cover now...

Parapunter
16th Oct 2008, 08:24
No! However, the effects are pretty poor. What about reshooting the flying scenes in cgi to match the rest of the film? I'm sure it could be done I'd pay good money to see that.

ExSp33db1rd
16th Oct 2008, 08:47
NO ! Put it in the archives of 'do you remember', like Casablanca, or Gone With The Wind.

Don't spoil a good thing, can never go back.

Who cares if it was grainy and corny, it was cutting edge technology then, got to keep the original, a curse on those idiots who tried to 'colour' old black and white films, too. What's the point ?

BlueWolf
16th Oct 2008, 08:50
No, but there should be a re-match of the stoush it was based on.

Winner gets to decide the future of the EU :E

Der absolute Hammer
16th Oct 2008, 09:18
Okay...agree...but what happens if the about one hundred and forty six Polish pilots who flew in the BoB win?

tony draper
16th Oct 2008, 09:29
Perhaps they should make one from the German point of view.
"Himmel ****! der tommies iz thicker zan der fligen aroun zer poo poo"
:rolleyes:

ExSp33db1rd
16th Oct 2008, 09:30
They have already taken over England - by all accounts.

hardhatter
16th Oct 2008, 09:45
one from the movie, see if you still remember:

After a crummy landing of a Spitfire:

"you can teach....."

Standard Noise
16th Oct 2008, 09:59
Some huggyfluff Whitehall johnnie would no doubt insist on it being like the Battle of Trafalgar celebrations 3 years ago.

The 'Blue' Air Force against the 'Rot' Waffe with no clear winner and the last scene where a Spitfire and a Messerschmitt fly off into the sunset with both pilots sporting cheesy grins and giving each other the thumbs up to strains of 'wind beneath my wings'.
:ugh:

RAPA Pilot
16th Oct 2008, 10:02
........monkeys to fly better than that.

Sad huh!


Heres a line I use all the time with my lot.

"Come on Ops. My engine's overheating and so am I. We either stand down or blow up, now which do you want"
Classic....

denis555
16th Oct 2008, 10:47
"Silly Bitch!"
"He's calling you names again Arnold!!!"

Very sad :O

Nah - don't remake - CGI never as good as the real thing even if they can meke them flip over a million times, never looks real somehow.

Since the world has run out of airworthy HE-111s better not to remake it at all.

( I would however make the women in it wear makeup and hairstyles that are more 1940s - and some of the extras are very wooden The guy on the hut on the phone "stand down 2 section" did he have broomsticks up his sleeves and trouser legs when he moved?)

criticalmass
16th Oct 2008, 10:51
No, leave it alone.

Peter Fanelli
16th Oct 2008, 10:55
Absolutely not!


What about reshooting the flying scenes in cgi to match the rest of the film?


cgi sucks big time

dead_pan
16th Oct 2008, 10:57
Not really bothered either way - may look good in CGI although if they do they'll probably give in to the temptation to push the envelope of the likes of Spit & Hurricane - this'll upset the purists.

If they do may I suggest they keep Ron Goodwin's 'Aces High' march as the theme (all you film buffs will know this was recycled from the film of the same name), and they don't blow the hell out of another hangar at Duxford. IWM wouldn't be impressed.

S'land
16th Oct 2008, 11:01
NO, NO, NO. It is a classic film of its period. Leave it alone.

angels
16th Oct 2008, 11:08
Why not? No-one is going to force anyone to go and see it.

I'd probably take a look just out of interest.

Dop
16th Oct 2008, 11:14
You could use CGI to spruce things up a bit - change the noses on all those Buchons to look like proper 109s for a start.

dead_pan
16th Oct 2008, 11:24
Actually, some of the special effects which were used in the film were pretty lamentable e.g. the Stuka attack on the radar base on the south coast. Think Gerry Anderson on an off-day. Also, I've never seen blood the colour of that seen on the goggles of the Kr..,sorry German, gunner. What was that stuff - kiddies' play paint?

Howard Hughes
16th Oct 2008, 11:33
Yes!

And this time the true story should be told how the Americans won the war, while the Brit's just bumbled around like Dad's Army...;)

Der absolute Hammer
16th Oct 2008, 11:47
Ja well----

RAF Roll of Honour.
Battle of Britain.
October 10-31, 1940.
One operational sortie or more.
2,353 British pilots.
574 foreigners.

So---20% of total pilots were foreigners.
Anyway Hurricanes Mark II made in Fort William by Canadian Car Foundry - also Hurrican XII-, Canada using American slave labor.

kevmusic
16th Oct 2008, 12:20
What's your point, DaH? That the Poles weren't properly represented in the film? That no acknowledgment was made to the foreign nationals flying with the RAF? Has somebody said it was a purely British endeavour?

Jetex Jim
16th Oct 2008, 12:21
One good reason to remake/rework the airborne scenes would be to 'fix' the Rolls Royce engined 109s and 111.

http://www.adlertag.de/bilder/me109g6_4.jpg

The Bavarian Fighter looks a lot sexier with a Damler Benz power unit

Tired Old Man
16th Oct 2008, 12:34
Don't often post on the forum, more of a reader but I would say leave it alone. You Tube links can be a pain but it his films case please allow this exception its one of the best movie openings.

YouTube - Battle of Britain - Opening (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVVoH9-QH0)

The theme musics good to.

CUNIM
16th Oct 2008, 12:47
Be about as successful as "The Italian Job" remake.

Blacksheep
16th Oct 2008, 12:48
If you really want CGI, why not just go and fight it all over again using the "Battle of Britain" computer game? :rolleyes:

That way you get Daimler Bf 109fs, Dorniers, Ju88s and Me110s to play with as well. You might even manage to change the result.

Oh, and for authenticity don't forget to lose five squadrons of your most experienced pilots over Dunkirk way, before the kick-off. I know the lads on the ground were asking where the RAF were, but they were sitting on the beach while the fighters were flying their arses off behind enemy lines.

Buster Hyman
16th Oct 2008, 13:34
I'm with Howard...and give Tom Cruise the lead role!

niknak
16th Oct 2008, 13:37
Just think of all the remakes that have been produced and can you think of one that was better than the original?
Nor can I.
There's no doubt that, because of the way films are funded, there would be a large American input into the remake and film producers from the other side of the Atlantic, whilst capable of making some very good original films, rarely let the facts get in the way of making 2 hours of nationlistic drivel with a heavy American bias when it comes to wartime/military remakes.

No, leave it where it is.

johnfairr
16th Oct 2008, 13:47
At the risk of being called an anorak by Black Sheep, the Bf 109-F only hit the the Luftwaffe in Spring 1941, a touch too late to have an effect on the BoB. :=

angels
16th Oct 2008, 13:50
I'll spare Black Sheep the trouble john.

You're an anorak. :ok:

brickhistory
16th Oct 2008, 13:52
No, don't remake it.

Just finished a remarkable book on the Hurricane by Francis Mason. A bit dated now (1986-ish?), but it was fascinating reading especially the BoB segment as was the tank 'buster' in the desert war.

Correct on the Bf-109E being the Luftwaffe's prime single-engined fighter in 1940.

Thanks to every man who filled a RAF cockpit or turned a wrench regardless of country of origin.

Wod
16th Oct 2008, 14:01
I was born in 1940, so in one sense I can have no opinion.

Nostagialistically (did I invent a word?) speaking - don't try to replicate Film 1

Historically speaking there may be room for a film with a wider view.

Jetex Jim
16th Oct 2008, 14:02
If you really want CGI, why not just go and fight it all over again using the "Battle of Britain" computer game?

That might be interesting if the game were to permit fitting the 109s with drop tanks. I've heard it said that a little extra duration for the 109s might have made quite a difference.

dead_pan
16th Oct 2008, 15:02
Maybe it won't be re-made but re-imagined (Hollywood speak for taking a film story line and improving upon it - remember Planet of the Apes?). Who knows where this could lead at the storyline development lab in Universal Studios... [LA accent] "I'm thinking a mash between Battle of Britain and say, Independence Day, with a touch of Harry Potter and Titanic. Would hit all of the key demographics."

denis555
16th Oct 2008, 15:19
Face it - it's basically a love story.

"Stuffy" Dowding is secretly in love with Hannah Reitch who is the Luftwaffe's ace pilot.

They met in Scotchland in a small town called Edin-burg and enjoyed many happy years together at an airfield in Lie-cest-ee-shire
Cut to the pair Yee-hahing through the prairie before jumping into a Stearman to loop the loop together.

Meanwhile the mean men of the Air Ministry are plotting to force these two lovers apart..... etc etc and 39 more pages of drivel.

brickhistory
16th Oct 2008, 15:59
As I stated earlier, I'm against a remake.

However, to all those popping off about how Hollywood would do it and then having your fun, I suggest your film industry do it.

You know the ones that supply the money to make the film (the producers), the infrastructure (soundstages, etc) to actually make the film, the distribution system to market it worldwide and make a profit for the producers who otherwise wouldn't have put up the money and the film attempted in the first place. You can do all that yourself and bypass Hollywood's buffoonery completely.

Oh, right...

dead_pan
16th Oct 2008, 16:00
Warming to my theme now (quiet day in the office). Find below my suggestions for casting for the new film. The list is ordered as follows - original actor - role - my suggestion for their replacement.

Harry Andrews ... Senior civil servant - Harry Hill in his film breakout film role
Michael Caine ... Squadron Leader Canfield - Jude Law, cheeky mockney geezer, continuing his career homage to Michael Caine
Trevor Howard ... Air Vice Marshal Keith Park - Sylvester Stallone
Curd Jürgens ... Baron von Richter - Arnold Scharzenegger as the token German - might be able to deliver his lines with some authority for a change
Ian McShane ... Sgt. Pilot Andy - Russell Brand, another serial McShagger (I believe Ian M a notable swordsmen in his day)
Kenneth More ... Group Capt. Baker - Kenneth Brannagh, another thesp tw*t
Laurence Olivier ... Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding - Sir Ian McKellen - its a little known fact that Ian McK must by law have a role in every film involving or relating to Britain
Nigel Patrick ... Group Capt. Hope - no idea who this was in the film - could be a cameo role for David Beckham?
Christopher Plummer ... Squadron Leader Colin Harvey - semi-posh bloke who gets the girl who everyone hopes will die horribly (he does) - ideal part for Jonathon Ross then
Michael Redgrave ... Air Vice Marshal Evill - did they really have a character called Evill in the film, or did I make a mistake when I cut & paste the cast list from IMDB?? If on the off-chance they did, Mike Myers would be your man.
Ralph Richardson ... Sir David Kelly (British minister to Switzerland) - unfortunate character name, best dropped from re-make to avoid any further embarrassment to the Government & BBC
Robert Shaw ... Squadron Leader Skipper - this is the bloke with the dog, right? Gawd knows, what about Bear Gryllis? He's probably wrestled with a few sharks in his time (hang on, wrong film)
Patrick Wymark ... Air Vice Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory - getting bored now - I dunno, George Clooney?
Susannah York ... Section Officer Maggie Harvey - Pamela Anderson, no question
Michael Bates ... Warrant Officer Warwick - again, absolutely no idea who this was in the film. Could offer place to a wannabe actor selected in a new TV talent show along the lines of X-factor, lets call it "How Do You Solve a Problem Like 3000 Heinkels Crossing the Channel and Bombing London"




What do you think?

denis555
16th Oct 2008, 16:11
Good dead_pan - but how could you forget Michael Bates ... Warrant Officer Warwick - ?

He shouted at Susanna York after Biggin was bombed.

"PUT THAT CIGARETTE OUT!!! Can't you smell gas???!!! The mains have gone!!! "

brickhistory
16th Oct 2008, 16:33
On a similiar thread on mil aircrew, the consensus was for Kiera Knightley to play the Suzannah York character.

She's the reigning queen of costume period films and I wouldn't mind seeing her in the period 'webbing.' :ok:

tony draper
16th Oct 2008, 16:44
From what I remember she certainly wasn't wearing period costume in Battle of Britain,she was wearing skirts of a length that would have got her arrested in the 1940s and a hair do straight from the sixties.
:)

BigEndBob
16th Oct 2008, 16:46
YouTube - De Haviland Mosquitos and Supermarine Spitfires 2006-merlins (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fNJ8rIEPLOo)

Cgi is getting there, gradually.
Think of all the aircraft you could see flying again.

frostbite
16th Oct 2008, 16:51
You forgot one, Mr Pan.

There will have to be a 'guest star' role for David Beckham.

chiglet
16th Oct 2008, 18:41
Curd Jürgens

Actually, it's CURT Jurgens [no umlaut, sorry.]

Christopher Plummer ... Squadron Leader Colin Harvey - semi-posh bloke who gets the girl who everyone hopes will die horribly (he does)

Erm, no, he gets badly burnt, or so we are led to believe.


Robert Shaw ... Squadron Leader Skipper - this is the bloke with the dog, right?


Nope, that's Micheal Caine S/L Canfield...

dead_pan
16th Oct 2008, 19:15
Denis - I thought that was Douglas Bader, sorry Kenneth More, who utters these lines?

Chiglet - re Herr Jurgens, don't blame me guv - spelling mistake courtesy of IMDB. Okay, okay, the Plummer character was horribly burnt not killed (my artistic license), still I'm sure most of us TV license payers would happily see the same fate afforded to Mr Woss. Re the pooch, haven't seen the film for a while and I must confess I only really tune in during the dogfights - the bits in between are a bit of a drag.

BlueWolf
16th Oct 2008, 20:10
2,353 British pilots.
574 foreigners.

So---20% of total pilots were foreigners.

Some, of course, were not foreigners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain), old bean. ;)

BOFH
16th Oct 2008, 20:36
But what will they call the dog?

Oh, wrong thread - sorry.

BOFH

TURIN
16th Oct 2008, 20:59
Michael Bates ... Warrant Officer Warwick - again, absolutely no idea who this was in the film. Could offer place to a wannabe actor selected in a new TV talent show along the lines of X-factor, lets call it "How Do You Solve a Problem Like 3000 Heinkels Crossing the Channel and Bombing London"

Genius! :D:D:D LMAO.


That's twice tonight, you boys are on form this evening.:ok:

twb3
16th Oct 2008, 21:08
No. Please no. The contemporary film industy is so inflated by their own self-importance and so disrespectful of facts that the product would bear no plausible resemblance to the events of history.

In other words, they don't really tell lies because they actually have no idea what the truth is. Nor do they care.

Hmm...this soapbox is a bit higher than I thought when I started.

TWB

Beatriz Fontana
16th Oct 2008, 21:12
Rarely do threads give me nightmares (one did, but a film about a nuc on Sheffield would give any Northerner nightmares), but this? A remake?

The film was probably singlehandedly responsible for the UK warbird industry! How could a CGI infested remake replace that sheer delight of seeing rotting aircraft saved from the scrapheap, lovingly restored and, in some cases, take to the skies again?

It would be as bad as remaking The Italian Job. Disaster.

Capt.KAOS
16th Oct 2008, 21:22
Actually, it's CURT Jurgens [no umlaut, sorry.]Check ze Briefmark...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Curd_Juergens_Marke.jpg

PS Hurricane the guts, Spitfire the glory...

dazdaz
16th Oct 2008, 23:23
Saw the movie, fantastic. Thing is, why did the RAF let the Germans bomb our chip shops in Liverpool. I must add, before my time. The people of Liverpool were most perturbed about this diversion of every day life.

GrumpyOldFart
17th Oct 2008, 00:08
How about Helen Mirren as Dowding?

Tiger_ Moth
17th Oct 2008, 00:41
I might take more flak than a Lancaster with 10 spotlights on it for this but here goes:

I don't think BoB was a good film. This is because it made a mistake that a lot of films of it's period made such as the Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, Tora Tora Tora etc.

It is a film about the battle instead of a story SET in the battle. I felt it was a bit like watching a dramatised documentary. The thing is I didn't really care when any of the characters died or whatever because they'd barely been introduced before they were blown away. I didn't empathise with them. Also I didn't like it focusing a lot on senior officers and decision makers and then switching rapidly between these people and the guys at the sharp end.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some idiot who likes films like Pearl Harbour or Flyboys or anything like that, it went too far the other way by being ridiculous and having special effects that gave the P-40s the aerodynamic qualities of some kind of spaceship.

What I'm saying is that if I want to learn about a battle I'll read a book about it. A film should aim to give you a feeling of what it was like to be there and I think this is best achieved by focusing on only a few main characters, so that when something happens or you think it might happen you actually care.

I think it's a stupid idea in general to remake films.

However I would love it if they made a film set in the BoB. Perhaps a film version of Geoffrey Wellum's excellent book First Light?

Or if anyone wants to make a film about WW1 flying they'd do well to base it on Sagitarius Rising. If they could capture half of the author's love of flying and wonder at the new world he found himself in it would be amazing.

Davaar
17th Oct 2008, 02:25
But what will they call the dog?

Caucasian. "Heel boy! Heel! Caucasian!".

Howard Hughes
17th Oct 2008, 03:24
I'm sure you are not allowed to use the word 'boy' when calling te dog either!:rolleyes:

Ozzy
17th Oct 2008, 03:31
Remake it and give it to Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down)

Ozzy

acmi48
17th Oct 2008, 04:29
remake with cgi- i want to see a hurricane-me 110 duel - circle of death included-but change the story line to match a 'piece of cake'-


and no pilot actors over 25...

tally ho

kluge
17th Oct 2008, 05:14
Best scene, the British Ambassador in Switzerland receives Richter.


"well what's stopping you......we're not easily frightened and we know just how hard it is for an army to cross the channel. The last little corporal that tried that came a cropper. So don't you dictate to us etc etc .... And even if you're marching up Whitehall we still won't listen."

Always get a lump in my throat when I see that scene. It makes me incredibly grateful and proud of the Few. I think the scene demonstrates the core English mentality perfectly.

.....and especially when the Ambassador then says....."it's unforgivable, I lost my temper." Uniquely British.

No remakes could ever do that justice.

hardhatter
17th Oct 2008, 05:56
I myself am on two minds about this:

on the one hand: it did revive more than a few Spitfires, Hurricanes, and gave us the chance to see Me-109's and He111's flying, albeit with Rolls Royce engines. That in itself would not be possible today, it would have to be CGI. That could improve a few scenes ( the 'forming of the big wing' scene, with some nondescript blobs (inktsplatters?)in the background which are another squadron supposedly) but the sound of the Merlin, the close ups and so on could not be redone that well.

On the other hand, you could remove some of the '60's-style hair-do, the superfluous love story and deepen some of the characters.

I remember back when I was still living in Zimbabwe, I remember my granddad made a VCR tape of Battle of Britain, which was aired in the early eighties. That particular version did not have the sloppy love story, it showed only the important bits. Does anybody know if this was edited by the local Dutch TV station, or is this version still available some where?

Memorable quotes:
-"It's like shooting rats in a barrel!"
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for fighters."

-"Well done boys. Back home for tea!" (Heinkels coming from Norway shot up badly.)

Howard Hughes
17th Oct 2008, 06:04
That in itself would not be possible today, it would have to be CGI.The flying scenes could definitely be done with 3/4 scale aircraft!

Der absolute Hammer
17th Oct 2008, 06:21
BlueWolf.

Ah yes, old chap - you mean the colonials troops?
The Germans had them also, in GSWA and also GEA.
But not able to be trained for flying otherwise, of course, you have not the possibility to shoot them down because that would not be so poltically correct?

Blacksheep
17th Oct 2008, 06:57
I didn't really care when any of the characters died or whatever because they'd barely been introduced before they were blown away. That's realism for you. Those who survived a long stretch were very close knit, but the squadrons were half filled by people who came, flew once or twice and disappeared. Roald Dahl wrote of fighter pilot life as it was for him - he never got to know anybody else because they were always shot down before he met them.

denis555
17th Oct 2008, 07:00
Denis - I thought that was Douglas Bader, sorry Kenneth More, who utters these lines?


dead_pan No No - it was Bates ( The Punkah Wallah from It 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' ) - Susannah York then says to him;

"Don't you shout at me MR WARWICK!"

dead_pan
17th Oct 2008, 08:46
Roald Dahl wrote of fighter pilot life


In his very readable book Going Solo. When I re-read this recently I was struck by how his survival was down to pure luck - probably true of most pilots.

Actually, the start of BoB is one of my favourite film moments, with the camera panning over the beach at Dunkirk, the voice of Churchill stating that the battle of France was over and that the Battle of Britain was just beginning (how clever was that to include this speech at the start of the film?), and then Ron Goodwin's incomparable Aces High march starting up. Spine-tingling stuff.

I did play the Aces High march once on my very loud 'ghetto blaster' whilst manning a trade stand at RIAT a few years back. All the blokes who walked past automatically fell into step. I must confess I have an evil urge to repeat this stunt at a large gathering of people in Germany (the Oktoberfest?) to see if it has the same effect (oh, the irony if it did). Our fellow Europeans do love their marshal music.

Der absolute Hammer
17th Oct 2008, 08:56
dead pan....

The idea is a funny one but you should be careful.
If Germans think you are playing some music of a Nazi recording you can find that someone calls the Polizei very quick. It is worse to do that here than Sunday washing the car.
I mean - it would be fun but some peoples might get very much upset...unless you have British football flag on car - of course!
Then they know it is just the dammed Tommies all over again.

dead_pan
17th Oct 2008, 09:09
DAH

Yes, yes - I know we all friends now, to quote Basil Fawlty (hor d'ouvres, anyone?)

Seriously though, I hear what your saying - 'twas only a joke & no offence meant.

hardhatter
17th Oct 2008, 09:20
Whatever you do, do not mention the war!:E

dead_pan
17th Oct 2008, 09:29
Err - I already have but I think I got away with it ;)

hardhatter
17th Oct 2008, 09:43
Do like Basil and blame Manuel....:}

Blacksheep
17th Oct 2008, 13:07
You can do all that yourself and bypass Hollywood's buffoonery completely.The point is brickhistory, that its OUR history. Without Fighter Command it is likely that we'd have been forced to capitulate and sign an agreement with Hitler. There'd have been no jumping off point for an American led invasion of France and the Russians would have overrun Europe after they'd finished smashing Germany.

I wonder where we'd all be be right now if OUR history had been different? I don't really care who makes the movie as long as they don't mess with our history. And I'm not forgetting that there were brave Americans who sacrificed their citizenship to fly for Freedom in the Battle of Britain.

BS. Bomber Command. Ret'd.

brickhistory
17th Oct 2008, 13:28
Mr. blacksheep,

I don't disagree with the distasteful habit of rewriting history for commercial reasons, but to take cheap shots without having the means to do it yourself seems pathetic at best.

I would love to see a factual movie made about many episodes in history that don't necessarily involve Americans, but, as I said earlier, if the primary audience (thus $) is the US and those supplying the costs to make said film on the hope that they'll make a return on their investment require certain 'adjustments' to history in the pursuit of a buck, then that's going to be inevitable.

Tom Cruise as the savior of the world is one unfortunate byproduct of that reality.

As an aside, it's been the last 10-20 years when the Englishman (or at least actor using the accent) has been the 'bad guy' in many mainstream films. Why is that?

So, it comes down, like everything, to money. If such a movie is made and flops, then it will be unlikely that any further such films are ever attempted. Is it better to not have such a story told even imperfectly (and in the faint hopes that for those that are interested, they'll read about the real story?) or not have it told at all?

Don't like that process, have a British studio do it.

And thus the circle is completely turned.

Personally, I'd like to see an factual remake of "The Great Escape."

P.S. I have absolutely no argument about the fate of the West if the RAF had buckled during the BoB and I am both grateful and admire the stand of "The Few."

Thanks also and my full respect for your Bomber Command service. It is a terrible shame that the horrific losses endured and fortitude shown by the Command is at best, largely forgotten, or at worst, subject to revisionist history.

Der absolute Hammer
17th Oct 2008, 15:24
Last weekend, with my friend , I went to Austria. Lovely day, with the roof open in car park.
I have CD of recording of Nazi propaganda radio broadcast. Lots of military music, sound of Stukas and comment about many Spitfires shot down last night - really loud stuff.
My friend is very bashful so organised auto sound so that we drive out of car park and sound comes on very full. This was not a good thing to do. Austrians were very angry at us. Immediate departure! High speed turn off!
Next time I go to Kehlstein I play one of the leader's speeches - top volume.
Yes I know Basil - with German visitors - hilarious. Personal favourite is Springtime from The Producers.
Also - to tune of Die Fahne hoch!
Horst Wessel song....
One can sing...
Die Preise hoch,
Die Schnauze fest geschlossen
Hunger marschiert
In ruhig festem Schritt
Hitler und Goebbels
Unsre beiden Volksgenossen
Hungern im Geist
Mit uns Proleten mit.....
2 more verse but that is enough I think.
So you can see, German have great sense of humor.

dead_pan
17th Oct 2008, 16:09
Check ze Briefmark


Danke fur die Briefmark, Herr Kapitan KAOS. For you, Herr Stirling-Chiglet (of the Long Range Pedant Group), ze argument ist over, nein?

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one)


DAH - indeed - from experience I think its fair to say our peoples' are pretty much cut from the same cloth - love of beer, base humour, holidays in Spain etc etc - must be something to do with our shared Anglo-Saxon heritage.

tony draper
17th Oct 2008, 16:24
I wudda been ok Mr Blacksheep, one has blonde hair and blue eyes and look very good in Black Uniform and Jack Boots.
Err perhaps it would be more correct to say one had blond hair.
:)

Der absolute Hammer
17th Oct 2008, 16:27
Ja---
There is some close family tye between the royal familys I think.

Cut from the same cloth?
Ja-but my towel is bigger and also from Harrods.
(laugh)..

kluge
17th Oct 2008, 17:04
after reading all these threads I have come to the conclusion that a Bollywood remake of this movie could be entirely fitting.

Lots of nubile wenches in WAAF webbing formation dancing.

I think the Few would approve.

Same for the dead dog mob thread also.

Bring on the dancing girls.

Chop chop.

chiglet
17th Oct 2008, 18:36
Danke fur die Briefmark, Herr Kapitan KAOS. For you, Herr Stirling-Chiglet (of the Long Range Pedant Group), ze argument ist over, nein?

Kamerad, mein Herr.
As ve Britisch say. "For me, ze var ist ober" :{
To be fair, though, in Reach for the Stars, where Herr Jurgens plays Werner Von Braun, his name is Curt on the titles....I think


Ja-but my towel is bigger and also from Harrods.


Mine was made by Ashton Bros [Zorbit Ltd]
Sorry, but they were a very famous Nappy [Diaper] manufacturer [of top quality]. They folded a few years ago

Rollingthunder
17th Oct 2008, 18:54
I thought is was a good film for the times. Many good actors in it and Spitfires.

The managing of the defence of Britain was very much a strategic course of operations run by the higher up and tactically accomplished by the ranks. It was a good thing to illustrate in the film.

Many of the older fighter pilots, lucky enough to survive more that a few sorties deliberately avoided getting to know the new arrivals for their own mental stability. So many newbies were lost very quickly. As demonstrated in the film the shortage was not aircraft but aircraft pilots, so they went frontline with very few hours under their belts and there was often no time to get to know them.

CGI has come a long way in the last few years (see Battle 360). It might be up to the task, but as said, if it is done, use a different storyline, don't just try to copy the old script, and keep all but a couple of Americans who were there as RCAF pilots out.

Der absolute Hammer
17th Oct 2008, 19:04
Adolph Galland, 'Dolfo' died in 1996.

dead_pan
17th Oct 2008, 19:51
give it to Ridley Scott


I was thinking the Coen brothers - give the story a dark, comedic twist. Or Mel Brooks (he has some 'previous' with films of the genre) - I'm sure he could trusted be not go over-the-top or be insensitive to any minority groups.

BarbiesBoyfriend
17th Oct 2008, 20:44
Ridley Scott could definately do it. (Aliens, Bladerunner etc)

I say- remake it!

I love the original and clearly remember seeing it on the big screen as a nipper.

So remake it- the original will still be there! And still as good.:ok:

Lon More
17th Oct 2008, 20:56
Leave it. The Septics will make a complete :mad: up of it. CGI has got a long way to go before it would be accptable here (cf. the BBC prog. about th last dambuster - the graphics there were only acceptable as links between segments.

The original retains so many memories. Took first real GF to see it one evening whilst my parents were away. Afterwards back home for a quick snog before walking her home, round the corner, i happened to mention how sexy Miss Yorke's legs were in stockings... GF showed me hers ... and a good time was had by all:E

treadigraph
17th Oct 2008, 22:38
Leave it. CGI may be very clever, unfortunately those who create with CGI are very juvenile in their approach. First film is delightful for its aeronautical authenticity.

brickhistory
17th Oct 2008, 22:40
Leave it. The Septics will make a complete xxup of it.

But at least we could make it.

And you?

treadigraph
17th Oct 2008, 22:51
But at least we could make it.

And you?

But why bother? Rolls powered 109s and 111s notwithstanding, the original film was made with real aeroplanes and authentic actors.

What do the Septics have to offer that improve on that? CGI? Tom Cruise?OK, if you think that's better than real life... I don't.

brickhistory
17th Oct 2008, 23:20
Me neither.

But the cheap shot was just that.

con-pilot
17th Oct 2008, 23:31
But why bother? Rolls powered 109s and 111s notwithstanding, the original film was made with real aeroplanes and authentic actors.


Okay, you go out and find 100 plus flyable 'Battle of Britain' aircraft to be used in the new movie.

Personally, no need to make another movie about the Battle of Britain. If Hollywood wants to make a new movie about World War II, make one about the thousands of American Merchant Seamen that lost their lives and the hundreds of American merchant ships that were lost supplying England before the United States was forced into what became World War Two.

Besides that, there is a better than excellent chance that Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler not changed the strategy of the Luftwaffe's initial campaign of a attacking foward RAF Stations and the radar sites and then started attacking cities instead.

But then again Hitler was not the sharpest stick in the bunch. How he was allowed to do as much as he did in Europe is just mind boggling.

But what the hey! Peace at any price, right?

Impress to inflate
18th Oct 2008, 00:23
NO NO NO leave it. If the septics got involved there would be a lone F18 E and Leo D Crapreo saving the forces of good from the Imperial dark forces while [email protected] Vera Lin. See Dark Blue World.

Dr Jekyll
18th Oct 2008, 07:04
It's true there are no Casa 111's available. But there are still a couple of Buchons about. Also some more or less genuine Bf 109's which there weren't then, and a lot more Hurricanes.

The compensation of using CGI is that the Do 17's and Me 110's could be represented.

ExSp33db1rd
18th Oct 2008, 07:53
....before the United States was forced into what became World War Two.



Only because their precious Pearl Harbour ( not Harbor ) was attacked. Took 'em until 1917 to join the first lot, too.

Not to say I'm not grateful, otherwise my Deutsche pronunciation would be perfect - and anyway, I'm married to one, but let's not forget what REALLY brought them into WW II, ( and it wasn't the plight of the Brits, or other Europeans ) or that they stood off ( with a few exceptions ) whilst thousands were being murdered nightly in London during the 1940 Blitz, and didn't even know, never mind care, yet expected the World to collectively wring their hands and cry into their beer after 9/11.

Sorry, not nice, but let's be realistic chaps.

Effluent Man
18th Oct 2008, 08:33
My memory of the original was dozing on a Suffolk beach to be awoken by the noise of multiple Merlins as virtually the whole cast flew over en masse.I guess this was summer '68 and I was bunking off school.A very educational thing to do as it happened because from that moment on I was had an interest in history, realising that it wasn't just about geezers in frilly collars and Corn Laws but actually something that touched the lives of people who were still alive.

The original has some wonderful flying sequences, a great score by Goodwin and Walton (sounds like Steptoe)and as has already been observed a great cameo of Richardson and Jurgens. Anyone else feel sympathetic to the German ambassador,whose heart was clearly not in the enterprise?

Did you spot Fred Elliot as the RAF I.O.after the disastrous raid from Norway? "We shot down twenty Heinkels,twenty Heinkels I say"

ExSp33db1rd
18th Oct 2008, 08:55
I was in the RAF with Corny Hawke ( John Hawke, also known as Jeff Hawke, for obvious reasons ) who got himself hired by the CIA to energise old B-26's around the States, and fly them single-handedly across the Atlantic to Angola, so that the US couldn't be accused of helping the Portuguese rebels - or whoever.

One day he was flying said B-26 up the East Coast of the U.S. to St. Pierre, that French possession near Gander, being the only place that he could legally - being French - depart for an Atlantic crossing without ATC clearance, or HF radio. ( the frogs didn't care ) and he recognised a rather familiar White House, so descended to take some low level photographs.

This was eons before 9/11 but nevertherless he was immediately 'jumped' by a pair of F-86's and 'escorted' to Andrews Air Force Base, where he was thrown into the clink; however he had been issued with a CIA password - Sparrow - ( you work it out ) which he kept chirping - to no avail. the CIA disowned any knowledge of him ( well, they would, wouldn't they )

However, he was eventually 'sprung' by reasons never admitted, but.........because the CIA had no knowledge of him, they couldn't claim their aeroplane back !! So he ended up being the proud possessor of his own B-26 ( might have been a B-25, sorry, can't remember ) which he promptly hired to Harry Saltzman as a camera platform for the filming of the Battle of Britain, and based it at Bovingdon.

Sadly, to my terminal regret, Corny rang me one day and offered me a ride during a filming session - and I turned it down !!!!

Effluent Man
18th Oct 2008, 09:38
I distinctly remember that aircraft being in the formation.Unfortunately I was not sufficiently erudite to discern the difference between a B-25 and a B-26. Nowadays I would be,but probably my eyesight wouldn't.

Jetex Jim
18th Oct 2008, 09:39
Jeff Hawke, for obvious reasons

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/JeffHawke_h2231_en.jpg
Jeff Hawke, I fancy it won't be obvious to all ppruners, but a great favorite of mine.

Great way to acquire a B26 though, great story x speedy.

Lon More
18th Oct 2008, 09:50
....before the United States was forced into what became World War Two.

Up till then many industrialists were making obscene amounts of money supplying both sides (not much changed there then). Many were openly pro-Nazi - Henry Ford being a prime example.

Same in WW1, Andrew Carnegie, despite his Scottish roots, thought the sun shone out of Kaiser Bill's backside

ExSp33db1rd
18th Oct 2008, 09:51
Jeff Hawke, for obvious reasons


He hailed from Cornwall, and had the accent to go with it, long before Jeff had been invented, hence our moniker for him.

Sadly, he came to an untimely end in dubious circumstances ferrying an aeroplane across the Adriatic. No obvious reason - maybe the CIA got their own back !

I last saw him taking off in an ME-108 ( 2 seat trainer mE-109 lookalike ) from Prestwick Westbound in December, via Kef. Sonder. and Goose Bay. He made it, and that was the start of his association with Hollywood.

Low Flier
18th Oct 2008, 11:32
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01010/2003_1010527i.jpg

Buster Hyman
18th Oct 2008, 11:41
Thanks for sharing that little gem ExSp33db1rd. :ok:

Philpaz
18th Oct 2008, 12:07
Besides that, there is a better than excellent chance that Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler not changed the strategy of the Luftwaffe's initial campaign of a attacking foward RAF Stations and the radar sites and then started attacking cities instead.


Ah, another prime example of "American History".
They seem to forget that while they were licking there wounds at Pearl Harbour it was the Royal, Australian, New Zealand ( basically all the commonwealth) Navys that were attempting to hold the Pacific. We had more ships than you and more importantly more carriers than you out there. Do yourselves a favour and learn some history that wasn't financed by uncle sam you ignorant *%!!!

And as far as the Battle of Britains concerned, the fighters would have just pulledback out of the range of the German fighters and spanked the shite out of them like they did the unescorted bombers from Norway. It is FACT that op Sealion would have never succeded in a million years. If anything it would have hastened the demise of the Nazi regime when half their army was sat at the bottom of the Channel and the other half was painting our Beaches red.

And the American Merchant seamen crossing the channel. Yes to an extent thats true, however, it was mainly Commonwealth Sailors crewing ships bought from the US in exchange for HUGE amounts of money and rights to place US bases in Blighty which still exist today. And one of the worst crossings was the trip to supply Russia, which was again a mainly commonwealth mission. Another point to note is that the crossings were only made safe due to HMS Bulldog capturing the enigma code book and Bletchley park decoding the transmissions saving thousands of lives (including American).

Anyway back to the thread,

I think a NEW film would be excellent, with a new script rather than killing the old Film. But lets face it, it would be made in Hollywood with all the Brits being saved by yanks flying British designed and powered Mustangs. (we would have made them ourselves but were too busy fighting and didn't have time to change the factorys over).

chiglet
18th Oct 2008, 12:18
It's a B25 Mitchel :ok:

Effluent Man
18th Oct 2008, 12:56
Philpaz is right,although only mentions the lesser reasons that Sealion would have ended in disaster.The main one was the lack of landing craft suited to such an operation.Rhine barges were designed to operate on rivers and canals.As such a loaded one has only about a metre of freeboard.Given the rudimentary nature of weather forecasting in 1940 there would have been a very good chance that we would not have needed to sink the invasion fleet.Anything more than a moderate channel swell would have been sufficient and would certainly have prevented any kind of evasive action when under attack.The availabilty of virtually any kind of naval or air opposition would have been enough to ensure that none got to the beaches.The Germans knew that it seemed and it may even have been a bluff to force Britain's withdrawal from the war.

Saab Dastard
18th Oct 2008, 19:52
If they do may I suggest they keep Ron Goodwin's 'Aces High' march as the theme (all you film buffs will know this was recycled from the film of the same name)

This was not recycled from the Film called Aces High. It was an original piece he composed, called the Luftwaffe March and early versions of the film soundtrack call it this.

However, it was subsequently renamed to "Aces High" because, a few years later, one of the Bands of the RAF was going to record an album with marches, including "Luftwaffe March". A march with that name, recorded by an RAF Band, already existed, therefore the march was re-titled "Aces High". Apparently.



SD

chiglet
18th Oct 2008, 23:04
Just followed the link on posting 23 [youtube link] and in Alphbetical Order
is Kurt Jurgens.....
Alles in Ordnung..Ja?

dazdaz
18th Oct 2008, 23:32
The music, no video....Great tune.....YouTube - Battle of Britain?1969?-Ace High March (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZJdRRN3dOQ&feature=related)

con-pilot
19th Oct 2008, 00:53
Ah, another prime example of "American History".
They seem to forget that while they were licking there wounds at Pearl Harbour it was the Royal, Australian, New Zealand ( basically all the commonwealth) Navys that were attempting to hold the Pacific. We had more ships than you and more importantly more carriers than you out there. Do yourselves a favor and learn some history that wasn't financed by uncle sam you ignorant *%!!!

Oh my, did I step on some overly sensitive Limey toes. :}

you ignorant *%!!!

And a personal insult to boot, you're on a roll along with being completely wrong.

Now lets see here.

Royal, Australian, New Zealand ( basically all the commonwealth) Navys that were attempting to hold the Pacific. We had more ships than you and more importantly more carriers than you out there.

I really hate to pop your bubble, but the Royal Australian, New Zealand Navies, including "basically all the commonwealth Navys" never, repeat, never operated an Aircraft carrier in World War Two.

Now as for this:

Navys that were attempting to hold the Pacific.

They did a rather bad job as they never won a battle or slowed down the Japanese advance until the United States Navy showed up. That is not opinion, that is fact.

Oops, wait a minute, I could be mistaken. It could be argued that the Japanese Imperial Navy was slowed down slightly when it took the time to sink the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Hell, I believe that cost the Japanese perhaps two whole days.

And of course the sterling defense of Singapore. What a proud moment of British history that was. A superior force of well entrenched, healthy, well fed, well armed British forces last only, hum, what 5 days? Against a sick, malnourished, under armed Japanese force, whose Commanding General had already given up any chance of taking Singapore. It raises the specter of the British forces chasing down the Japanese forces so they could surrender to to them.

So much for your attempts to "hold the Pacific".

And yes this is thread drift, however, when someone personally insults me, I hit back.

Now I could say you are an ignorant little [email protected] But I will not.

I could also say that you are a misinformed [email protected] But I will not.

Oh, by the it is not "navys" you uneducated, oops, I didn't mean uneducated, just slipped out. It is 'navies'.

You might want to look that up, along with historical accuracy.

(Oh, a note to the moderators, as long as citizens of the United States can continually be called "Septics" I feel free to call the British 'Limeys'. Fair enough? :ok:)

Now, one more time. Make your own movie with 'proper British actors' in Britain using English money. Nobody outside the U.K. will see the movie, but what the hell, go for it. Well okay, I'll watch it when it ends up on late night movies on TV.

dazdaz
19th Oct 2008, 01:18
I like you guys over the pond, but you must admit, the US made a bit of a 'balls up' in the remake of the 'Italian Job':D

con-pilot
19th Oct 2008, 01:33
I like you guys over the pond, but you must admit, the US made a bit of a 'balls up' in the remake of the 'Italian Job'

Oh hell, if you are talking about Hollywood, they could screw up a one jeep convoy. :p

(Key being, the movie "Con Air", the script writer for the movie flew with me for week. :eek:)

dazdaz
19th Oct 2008, 01:50
Not forgetting my good pal Simon West (Brit) director:ok: Think the script writer was Scott ???????

ExSp33db1rd
19th Oct 2008, 09:26
Thread seems to have drifted a bit - What !

But as it has, and as I introduced the pilot of the B-25 ( thanks ) involved in the filming of the "Battle of Britain " - one Hawke of my aquaintance - I'll add another anecdote.

Hawke and I ( and others of course ) were despatched by the RAF to that vast wilderness contolled by the RCAF, who had taken on some NATO commitment at that time, and there were introduced to the art of controlling a flying machine - actually not quite accurate, as Hawke had already been succesfully taught this by something called a Flying Scholarship in something called a Tiger Moth, I believe - anyhow, after the Harvard and an Ontario Summer, our jet conversion was conducted in the middle of Manitoba, in the middle of January, and it was bl**dy cold.

The aircraft chosen for our education was the Lockheed T-33 - that thing with ENORMOUS tip tanks full of extra fuel - which also boasted an electric horizontal stabiliser trim switch on the top of the stick.

Crossing the hedge on one landing approach, Hawke experienced a runaway electric trim, nose up. I'd have been dead within the minute - and none of you would now be learning of this - but he threw the beast into a very steep turn, poured on all the coal and managed to fly a few 360's whilst he identified the correct circuit breaker in the sidewall of the cockpit and then activated the alternate trim procedure. Brilliant.

Philpaz
19th Oct 2008, 09:42
I really hate to pop your bubble, but the Royal Australian, New Zealand Navies, including "basically all the commonwealth Navys" never, repeat, never operated an Aircraft carrier in World War Two.


Wrong, but i'll give you partial credit for effort. They infact did OPERATE carriers, they didn't own any!
HMS;
Activity
Archer
Ark Royal
Attacker
Avenger
Battler
Biter
Campania
Colossus
Courageous
Dasher
Eagle
Furious
Glorious
Hermes
Illustrious
Nairana
Ruler
Vengeance
Vindex

To name but a few. They are all WW2 RN Carriers operated by RN and Commonwealth forces.
They also operated hundreds of support vessels which made up a sizable chunk of ALL paccific forces.


They did a rather bad job as they never won a battle or slowed down the Japanese advance until the United States Navy showed up. That is not opinion, that is fact.

Well yes, your right there. But they also took the Philipines from you didn't they. And you got it all back with our help.

I think I may have been a little harsh with you and for that I appologise. It really grinds my gears that you guys think you won the war on your own. It does a huge dis-service to all the other nations people that laid down there lives for the greater good. It was the Allies that won the war, not just one nation.


A superior force of well entrenched, healthy, well fed, well armed British forces last only, hum, what 5 days

Oh and they were non of the above, Churchill in his wisdom stripped them of any modern equipment for the European/African Campaigns as he percieved Singapore as being inpenetrable.....ho hum.

dead_pan
19th Oct 2008, 10:04
Saab dastard - its a fair cop, guv, I'll 'fess up to this mistake. Must have dreamt this or something.

Chiglet - you say Curt, I say Curd, lets call the whole thing off


Con air


How dare you disrespect this film! This is modern day classic, with some of the funniest lines ever. Best viewed when drunk, by the way.

Pontius Navigator
19th Oct 2008, 11:54
In the carrier list don't forget Victorious. She was loaned to the USN as USS Robin. She was the only carrier that kamikazi attacks bounced off as she had an armoured flight deck.

And Singapore? I would not say the failure was entirely down to the troops. true its defenses were orientated towards the sea and not Malaya but the island itself was really indefensible. You need sufficient depth so that your rear areas are immune from easy enemy attack, particularly artillery. At 11 miles across with the strait in an arc to the north it would never have been defensible.

Buster Hyman
19th Oct 2008, 12:04
This is what I like about Pprune...it makes you think & sometimes investigate stuff....

Con.

Not taking sides or joining in a slanging match, but your comment about the lack of a Commonwealth carrier in the Pacific intrigued me. I didn't know of any in that theatre either but, upon looking up the Wiki, it seems the British Pacific Fleet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet)was withdrawn to the Western Indian ocean in 1942. The fleet returned in May 1944 for Operation Transom, a joint task force.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/HMS_Implacable_AWM_019037.jpg

Seafires and Fireflies line up on the deck of the aircraft carrier HMS Implacable and warm up their engines before taking off. 1945

Der absolute Hammer
19th Oct 2008, 12:39
Included in the Royal Navy totals were:
Royal Australian Navy - six cruisers, five destroyers and two sloops;
Royal Canadian Navy - six destroyers;
Royal Indian Navy - six escort and patrol vessels;
Royal New Zealand Navy, until October 1941 the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy - two cruisers and two sloops.
That was the Commonwealth naval force.

Ark Royal, yes, that was not good, turned upside down near Gibralter. No diesel generators, not standby power, no bilge pumps! Meccano ship? It had been built at Cammell Laird. Bad design blamed for capsize and bad crewmanship.
It is probable true to say that

1.Americans won war in the Pacific.
2. Britain might have lost war in Europe without Americans.
???

But I do not think Implacable saw service in Far East.
Invovled with Tirpitz.
In November, 1944, her aircraft bombed Norwegian prisoner of war ship Rigel, killed 2,500 allied men. Friendly fire of great destruction I am afraid.

brickhistory
19th Oct 2008, 13:17
Con was correct. There was no Commonwealth carrier in WWII.

Those forces may have crewed the various RN flat decks, but there was no RAN or RNZAN, et al, carrier in the Pacific during WWII.

As PN notes, the USN had to borrow a Brit carrier in 1942 after we kept losing ours around Guadelcanel (sp?).

The Britsh Carrier Task Force was a sop to Allied unity in the later Pacific War. The USN leaders did not want any Brit forces to detract from the US' revenge against Japan.

As well as being, rightfully, concerned about the underway replenishment capabilities and supply train needed to keep those RN carriers at sea.

Doctrinally and physically, the RN carriers were not designed for the long at sea periods that the USN practiced. Additionally, that same armored flight deck, so handy for keeping kamikazes out, made the RN carriers absolute hellships for the crew. Designed for colder Atlantic ops, the Brit carriers broiled their crews in the Pacific.

The Brit carriers also carried far fewer airplanes due to the smaller hangar deck and the additional armor.

Shunted to the side by Admirals King, Nimitz, et al, the Brit Task Force did good work in Southeast Asia as well as the Okinawa assualts. They overcame their supply train issues by dint of some hard work and innovative techniques, but it was hell on the tars.

A very good book on this is "They Gave Me a SeaFire" by Mike Crossley, RN/FAA WWII pilot.

Now all of that said, if any 'furrin' posters are going to take cheap shots at the US for 'being late' or 'trading with the enemy,' etc, etc, all charges that are partially true to a degree, I not so kindly remind you to look in the mirror.

Refresh us all about Halifax, the Duke of Windsor, the many Brit companies that sold to Germany and Japan until 3 Sep 39?

Ask any Czech ppruner when the war started and if they think the Brits and French were 'late.'

As brave and resourceful as the ABDA (American/British/Dutch/Australian) forces were in the early part of the Pacific War, the historical fact is that they all got their asses kicked by the Japanese.

As for losing the Phillippines, yep, we did, some six years earlier than planned under the Independence plan already in place. May I remind you that the US did go back and retake them during the war? When did Singapore, Hong Kong, et al, return to British or Commonwealth control?

There is plenty of credit and criticism to go around on the Allies side.

For a BoB remake, find ANY producer willing to put up the cash to make it, convince him to go for 100% historical accuracy, then get back to us on how it should be done.

I think that will be a long wait.

Chimbu chuckles
19th Oct 2008, 13:29
Hmmm not good to open the friendly fire pandora's box.

What was that WW2 saying? When the Brit Bombers fly over the Germans duck for cover, when the German bombers fly over the Brits and Yanks duck for cover, when the yank bombers fly over EVERYONE DUCKS for cover.

Con et al you need to remember that for over 2 years before you guys got directly involved the only war going was against the Germans/Italians and as a result the vast majority of Commonwealth Forces from Australia and NZ were reasonably busy in North Africa and Western Europe helping out mother England.

True the Singapore defense was absurd...I used to live in Singapore and operate out of Seletar. Its a few hundreds meter across the Straights of Johore...even blowing up the causeway wouldn't significantly slow an armed troop of Baden Powell's finest.

You guys got turfed out of the PI just as easily...the Japs were first stopped at Kokoda and Milne Bay by the Ozzies. They never lost a battle until the picked a fight with the Ozzies (including a significant number of my family)...but turning that initial loss into a losing streak was a team effort.

Mind you we never forgave that Tw*t McCarther for seriously suggesting they just let the Japs invade Australia and wear themselves out. He wouldn't have been so cavalier with California.

Thread drift off...No way should BoB be remade and CERTAINLY NOT BY THE SEPTICS.:E

Edit: The ONLY reason you guys retook the PI was McCarther's ego. They could have just as easily bi passed/neutralised the PI like they did any number of other Jap bases, Rabaul as an example.

Der absolute Hammer
19th Oct 2008, 13:53
Okay - no more friendly fire.....
So then - where are the Spitfires buried in the sand near Darwin-what await unburial for remake of Battle of Britain epic movie?

Chimbu chuckles
19th Oct 2008, 14:14
I think the only Spitfires 'buried' around Darwin are those that went straight in from great height...hopefully sans pilot.

brickhistory
19th Oct 2008, 14:19
Con et al you need to remember that for over 2 years before you guys got directly involved the only war going was against the Germans/Italians and as a result the vast majority of Commonwealth Forces from Australia and NZ were reasonably busy in North Africa and Western Europe helping out mother England.

Surely you mean the only war that concerned you was against the Germans/Italians, etc.

Seems Japan was having a grand time in China since 1933, but that so Asian that I'm sure it didn't count.

But I suppose the difference is that it was your interests being threatened so that's the time for you joining in the war. I wonder if that rationale can be applied to anyone else?

Perhaps a nation that actually still has a film industry?

By the way, don't forget the Indian divisions serving in North Africa.

Chimbu chuckles
19th Oct 2008, 14:29
I was going to detail EVERY Commonwealth Country's efforts (India, Burma, Rhodesia, Fiji, South Africa, Canada, British Virgin Islands, West Indies - miss any?) and mention China but for the sake of brevity I left out the self evident.

And yes we, and the US, ignored the infighting among the Asians to our north...we could have done what precisely?

Bit like North Korea.

Yes you still have a film industry...lucky there are 300 million of you else you'd struggle to get anyone to watch the unmitigated shite Hollywood pours forth upon an unsuspecting public.

Jetex Jim
19th Oct 2008, 15:36
There's nothing quite like a 'my film industry's bigger than yours' fight to brighten up a slow sunday.

larssnowpharter
19th Oct 2008, 16:03
One would pay to see a Bollywood remake. :E

Brick:

As for losing the Phillippines, yep, we did, some six years earlier than planned under the Independence plan already in place. May I remind you that the US did go back and retake them during the war?

First, the correct spelling is 'Philippines'.:rolleyes:

Independence Plan; Sir, you have to be feckin jokin! Suggest you actually look at the terms. Peso linked to the dollar, foreign ownership of businesses and all those nice military installations. G'is a break lad! Then after independence the support for Marcos. Puppet or what?

Certainly General Doug did retake the PI. The Battle of Manila cost about 100,000 civilian lives. Mac was advised that the battle was not worth it by his staff. Went ahead anyway and was a bit pissed to find his rooms in the Manila Hotel were not in good nick. Over 5000 US Army lost their lives in this battle.

Yeah, right:

I'll be back

Der absolute Hammer
19th Oct 2008, 16:46
I'll be back ...Arnold Schwarzenegger....The Terminator.
Douglas McArthur....I cam through and I shall reurn.

larssnowpharter
19th Oct 2008, 17:09
Douglas McArthur....I cam through and I shall reurn.

The 'I shall return' bullshit was a journalistic invention after he got to Oz. He needed to get back though to check on his stock in the Benguet Gold Mines

con-pilot
19th Oct 2008, 17:16
I think I may have been a little harsh with you and for that I appologise. It really grinds my gears that you guys think you won the war on your own.

Apology accepted. However, I know that I have never said, nor have I seen any other American here, ever say that the United States won World War Two on our own. Despite the impression that Hollywood tries to portrays. But then again Hollywood seldom gets anything correct.

I am amused over the degree of concern and fear by some people over a movie that has yet to be filmed, yet to be released, whose script has not been read or seen by anybody who is complain the most about something that has not happened yet.

Wait until the movie is released, if it ever is, see the movie, don't just read the reviews and then comment on the movie's context and accuracy.

I just hope for everyone's sake that it will be more accurate than that horrible movie "Con Air".

As I posted earlier, the head script writer for "Con Air" rode with me in a 727 for a week to get ideas for the movie. After the week was over we took him to the Officer's Club at the Guard Base and had a few drinks while he was waiting for his airline flight back to California. I asked him if he got any good ideas during the week he flew with us. He replied that it was the most boring week he had ever had, and that to sell the script to Disney he would have to be real creative.

And boy did he get creative.

Captain Stable
19th Oct 2008, 18:24
Did anyone else catch the documentary on More4 last night "Who Downed Douglas Bader?"?

Very interesting.

It managed to emphasis what a vain, arrogant, lying, selfigh @$$hole he really was.

For example:-

He claimed when incarcerated in a POW camp (and later) that he was downed by a collision by an Me109. Yet he was entertained by Dolfo Galland and the officers of Jg26 after his capture and he asked them "Who shot me down?"
He claimed to have shot down two Me109's before his "collision" with a 109. Yet only one Me109 was shot down that day, by a Pilot Officer in his squadron, who described the aircraft in great detail, down to its orange-painted tail. That aircraft has been located. So Bader did not shoot down any aircraft that day.
On his readmittance to the RAF at the outbreak of war that he had lost his old logbook from before his accident. Yet it was discovered in his possessions after his death. It shows he had slightly in excess of 400 hours solo. In his "new" logbook he claimed over 500 hours solo, the magic figure he needed. So he lied about his experience and lied about having lost his logbook.
He knew he had not been downed by a collision. It appears from the evidence that he was actually shot down by a fellow Brit who mistook his Spitfire for a Me109F, which had a significantly different profile from an Me109E.
He could not have known he had been shot down by one of our own when he claimed he had been downed by a collision. It was clearly an affront to his dignity to have been shot out of the sky.
People will probably claim that he was the man for the job at the time. I disagree. His closeness to Trafford Leigh-Mallory and the campaign the two of them carried on against Keith Park was not healthy and did not help the fight against the Luftwaffe at the time. The "Big Wing" concept was flawed and did not help the defence of the forward airfields when their squadrons had scrambled against the early inbound raids.

Bader was (perhaps) a hero to many. Certainly a very flawed hero. His behaviour and arrogance after capture endangered many escape attempts and let us not forget that when he was downed he was disobeying a direct order - not to chase German fighters inland. He also lost his legs in an accident caused by his direct disobedience to a direct order not to indulge himself in low-level aerobatics.

brickhistory
19th Oct 2008, 18:26
lars,

I don't worship MacArthur, far from it. I agree, as did the JCS at the time, that the battle for Manila was pointless. Roosevelt caved into the pressure from MacArthur, knowing he'd be his next Presidential opponent if he didn't.

Doesn't detract that there was a plan to give the Philippines(sorry for the spelling mistake, but I'm American ya know, you can't expect much better) back to self-governing unlike the British and other colonial empires. Those were forced on the powers and it was a case of "lie back and think of England (insert your country here)" because it was gonna happen no matter what due to being militarily and economically exhausted.

chimbu,

So you agree that the war started for whenever it was in the interests of whatever country?

And, seriously, are you going to include Burma in your list of eager volunteers for HMG? My reading of history seems to be that they couldn't wait to get shed of HM forces, even to the point of actively aiding the Japanese.

jetex, re the 'my film industry is bigger than yours' debate, I'd wonder how a Bollywood version, a Russian version, a US version, would run?

After those three, I'm out of major film production countries.

As I've said repeatedly, the first was well done. Leave it be.

But if it's gonna be remade, do it yourself if you're gonna b1tch about it.

To whomever said Hollywood produced crap, I couldn't agree more. Funny how those gross as much or more in the overseas market as the US one however.

Perhaps it's not just us 'stupid 'Mericans' who see them.

Der absolute Hammer
19th Oct 2008, 18:42
Alec Ross, the lackey of Bader at Colditz did not go home to England because of Bader, of course. That is not a very nice thing to have done. It is much worse than to be a bully - to refuse freedom to some one so that he serves you longer.

dead_pan
19th Oct 2008, 18:55
I just hope for everyone's sake that it will be more accurate than that horrible movie "Con Air".

Err, in what way was Con Air inaccurate? I didn't realise it was based on a true story. And there was me thinking it was just a bit of tongue-in-cheek Hollywood froth for the masses.

I still stand by my previous comment about the film - a modern-day classic.

Could anyone please explain to me why it is soo important to get the facts straight about who did what when and with whom in WWII? I realise it was a (the?) seminal event of the 20th Century, but we are now in a new Millennium and the World has moved on massively since then. The history of the event is extensively documented (probably more so than any other event in modern times) and accepted by the vast majority of people - perhaps it is time to consign the event to the history books and move on?

In case anyone thinks I am being disrespectful, I like everyone else in the free world fully appreciate the sacrifices made in this war - I just think this obsession with WWII is a bit mawkish and actually denigrates the sacrifices made in other conflicts both before and since whch have also contributed to protecting our freedoms and way of life.

Jetex Jim
19th Oct 2008, 19:24
jetex, re the 'my film industry is bigger than yours' debate, I'd wonder how a Bollywood version, a Russian version, a US version, would run?
After those three, I'm out of major film production countries.

Right, I get it. You mean there isn't a British film industry at all.:ouch:

Tempsford
19th Oct 2008, 19:41
Should a remake be made? I think not. The script was a classic. It was so bad in places, it even made me, as teenager cringe when I watched it a the Dominion in Tottenham Court Road. Some of the words used in the script were more akin to the time than perhaps we realise as to how people spoke at the time and a modern script writer may be less 'charitable'.

Sir William Walton was involved with the musical score for the film. His composition was largely discarded and Ron Goodwins brilliant score was largely used. Waltons music which again is excellent, is used in the sequence near the end of the film.

I can still remember the B25 parked at LTN. It was partly painted red and green for port and starboard. As the camera ship, the film crew found it easier to ask for aircraft to approach from the red or green side.

I cannot see why this discussion has yet again degraded into a debate which largely does diservice to those who did not live to see the fruits of their labours.

Hollywood has played an enormous part in 'bigging up' the role played by the US forces in WW2. This is not necessary as the role played by the USA was pivotal. Propoganda has served the USA very well as, to those who really don't want to do some research and establish the facts, the USA did indeed win WW2 single handed.

If Hollywood could produce a factual film rather than one that has an agenda (ie: money) then go ahead. Their track record is poor (we can all list the movies to which I refer) and I believe that as we in the UK cannot afford to make the film, we cannot trust Hollywood to make a film about one of the most important events in modern British History.

Temps

Davaar
19th Oct 2008, 20:15
to refuse freedom to some one so that he serves you longer.

And neglect thereafter. The story was authoritatively, I think, told in these pages a couple of years ago.

henry crun
19th Oct 2008, 21:38
dead pan: I do not believe that the vast majority of people read the documentation about that event.
I think it would be more correct to say that if a film is dressed up to appear to be accurate, many people will believe what they are seeing to be the truth.

con-pilot
19th Oct 2008, 21:58
Err, in what way was Con Air inaccurate? I didn't realise it was based on a true story. And there was me thinking it was just a bit of tongue-in-cheek Hollywood froth for the masses.




Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Prisoner_and_Alien_Transportation_System)

http://www.usmarshals.gov/jpats/

http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/duties/factsheets/jpats.pdf

And this one has music.

JPATS (http://microvoltradio.com/kbfithree.htm)

I was a pilot for the United States Marshal Service for ten years flying Boeing 727s, Sabre 60/80s, Westwinds, Lear 25/28, Lockheed JetStar 731 and some light twins.

Err, in what way was Con Air inaccurate?

It was inaccurate in every way possible, except that prisoners are transported on aircraft.

Buster Hyman
20th Oct 2008, 01:52
Err, in what way was Con Air inaccurate?
Did you not see the hair on Nicholas Cage????:eek:

Howard Hughes
20th Oct 2008, 02:41
So which 'psycho' was based on you con?;)

con-pilot
20th Oct 2008, 02:51
So which 'psycho' was based on you con?

Oh, that would have been me, personally. :p

Type casting you know. :E

Blacksheep
20th Oct 2008, 07:29
...why it is soo important to get the facts straight about who did what when and with whom... History needs to be accurate, otherwise there are no lessons to be learned from it.

By all means, weave a fictional story into historical events for dramatic effect - as in All Quiet on the Western Font for example, which was set in WW1 but didn't meddle with the actual history. (Even the English language Hollywood remake starring "John Boy" Walton and Ernest Borgnine). The Dambusters and Longest Day also portrayed history quite well. The problem with a remake of any of them is that they don't need to be made.

Captain Stable
20th Oct 2008, 07:55
We are examining all sorts of movies here. I get the impression that there are two splits:-

Between those who maintain "historical" films need to maintain, as much as possible, historical accuracy and those who prefer to have a good story and ignore the history;

and between those who maintain that many films already dicsussed here are historically accurate and those who maintain that they are not.

There are so many films set during WWII that no doubt portray fictional people but with a clearly historical background. The Battle of the Bulge, Kelly's Heroes, Saving Private Ryan, etc.

And then there are the films, also set in WWII which claim to portray the actual history of events in the war itself and in which the majority of the characters themselves are more or less incidental, such as The Battle of the River Plate, The Dambusters, The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, The Battle of Britain.

I would suggest that it is permissible for more "factual" liberties to be taken in the first type of movie than the second.

I suspect that very few filmmakers (of any nationality) are particularly interested in historical accuracy if it is likely to mar the income they make from the movie. Would a film of the life of Douglas Bader that was accurate as to his personality and behaviour meet with much approval nowadays? Like hell it would.

People going to the movies want heroes. The want to be able to identify with them. They want to be told a rollicking good story and don't want to be told that their heroes would nowadays be labelled as (at best) unsociable, rude, arrogant, egocentric psychopaths. Furthermore, the citizens of each country in which a film is released want to be able to feel good about what their fellow countrymen did, and don't want to be told that the other guy did more to win the war than their particular hero. Thus in U571, the citizens of the USA didn't want to be told that the Royal Navy did far more to contribute to the breaking of the Enigma code and that the USN actually, through incompetence and stupidity, hindered it. So the hero is an American, on an American vessel. And why? Because it sells to the target audience. And, in selling, it makes money for the film's backers.

"History is bunk." No, but it is being made so in order to make money. We can't learn much from Fred Bloggs (filmmaker) making money. But we could learn a great deal from history being told accurately.

Editied to add:-
To Davaar and Hammer:- Yes, Alex Ross (Bader's orderly during his incarceration in Colditz) was treated disgracefully by Bader. His obituary was very telling indeed in putting a couple more nails in the coffin of Bader's reputation that was given such a rose-tinted lie-filled glow by Paul Brickhill, Lewis Gilbert and Kenneth More.
Alex Ross - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1442190/Alex-Ross.html)

denis555
20th Oct 2008, 08:32
I think the worst crime old tin-legs committed was founding the Bader-Meinof gang in the 70s and then having the temerity to call it the "R.A.F" of all things - did he do it to appoint himself as Air Marshall or something?

We should be told.

Effluent Man
20th Oct 2008, 08:42
My belief as regards Bader is that even great people have tortured psyches.He undoubtedly contributed greatly to the fight and inspired a lot of people.That he wasn't a very nice human being also seems to be true and it would appear that he carried many insecurities. Those of you who may have seen interviews with pilots like Bob Doe will be able to discern the difference.Could you imagine him getting shot down by a 109 and then claiming it was a collision or friendly fire?In the end it just comes down to the fact that all personalities are different

dead_pan
20th Oct 2008, 12:17
History needs to be accurate, otherwise there are no lessons to be learned from it.

As I intimated before, I think most of us have well & truly learned the lessons from WWII. Lest We Forget? Hardly bl**dy likely given this bizarre anniversary carousel we seen to have gotten ourselves onto, not to mention the career obsession some people have with this event.

Also, if you're looking for historical accuracy I suggest you should rely on more trusted sources than Hollywood. Cinema's primary function is to entertain the masses not educate them - thats what we go to school for.

Blacksheep
20th Oct 2008, 12:19
...the Royal Navy did far more to contribute to the breaking of the Enigma code and that the USN actually, through incompetence and stupidity, hindered it. In fact the British Admiralty were afraid that if they passed too much Enigma source data to the US Navy, the Germans would find out that we had cracked their codes. So the Americans received only strictly limited information. As a result they built their own code cracking devices and turned out 'Bombes' for it at such a rate, they were using 75 times as many as the British code crackers by 1944. Don't forget, various versions of Enigma were in use by all of the German services - Naval, Air and Army.

The Germans changed the enigma rotors several times, which led to long gaps in intelligence until either the British, Americans or the Canadians managed to capture an up-to-date machine. The whole saga would be too boring for a decent film, one suspects, so a fictional heist on a submarine was more or less inevitable.

I have some first hand accounts of U-845's last patrol from four crew members. Their story is far too bizarre to make a movie. Nobody would ever believe it.

Captain Stable
20th Oct 2008, 12:23
Blacksheep, I've never heard that before - do you have any source for it? And if the USN weren't getting the codebooks, how were they responding to the frequent changes? My research indicated that the Americans were assisting Bletchley Park in manufacturing bombes but without the codebooks and cribs, they wouldn't have meant much.And capturing a new machine didn't contribute anything - "Shark" was broken without ever capturing a 4-wheel machine - the internal wiring could be deduced from other material.

Blacksheep
20th Oct 2008, 12:31
A book called "Battle of the Atlantic" that was in my Dad's attic. Its a properly researched and indexed volume. Details are at home, I'll pass them on when I can get back to it. The Americans did of course have code books and cribs from their own captures.

dead_pan
20th Oct 2008, 13:11
It was inaccurate in every way possible


Dare I say it but I suspect you may be viewing the film with the blinkers of someone who has been there and done that. I think if the US public believed their prisoners were being transported in the manner depicted in the film a few questions would be raised of their congressman/senators.

Saw Independence Day last night - fun film but not on a par with Con Air. Looking forward to someone criticising this film for being inaccurate (I know, I know, aliens don't really look like that).;)

con-pilot
20th Oct 2008, 15:14
Dare I say it but I suspect you may be viewing the film with the blinkers of someone who has been there and done that.

With that statement you have pointed out the reason for this entire thread.

I think if the US public believed their prisoners were being transported in the manner depicted in the film a few questions would be raised of their congressman/senators.

We received question nearly once a week from the offices of Congressmen and Senators concerning reports of how we 'abused' our passengers. In fact we had more than a few aides of Congressmen and Senators ride on 'fact finding' trips with us. One little know fact is that the prisoners riding in our aircraft actually has more room, pitch, than the public does on regular airlines riding in tourist sections. Yes the in flight meals suck and there is no in flight entertainment, well sometimes there was, but I won't get into that. ;)

One of the more humorous effects that occurred after the movie was released happened at airports we had been operating in and out of for years where no one had payed any attention to us at all. Suddenly we were swamped by fire marshals, police chiefs, airport managers and all sorts of officials all demanding to see how we 'chained the prisoners to aircraft, the cages that the prisoners were kept in while they were in the aircraft' and all the other nonsense that was in that movie. After we would take these people on a tour of the cabin, to a man/woman they all responded, "That's all, just seat belts?" and, "It sure does smell bad.". After a while the requests stopped and we were ignored as before.

Then there were the run ins with the FAA, but that is for a different thread. :E

dead_pan
20th Oct 2008, 18:44
Con-pilot

Okay, I humbly submit to your first-hand knowledge on this aspect of the film. Now, what about the rest of the film - does anyone out there have experience of towing a sports car from a cargo plane or crash-landing on the strip at Las Vegas???

[Sounded like a fun job - perhaps this is where Southwest got their business idea from (apart from the seat pitch)?]

brickhistory
20th Oct 2008, 18:48
crash-landing on the strip at Las Vegas???


I was a much younger man.

I didn't need an airplane.

It was the colors of the rainbow.

It was not pretty.

shedhead
20th Oct 2008, 18:52
Brick. That is either not enough or too much information, not sure which though.

larssnowpharter
21st Oct 2008, 15:55
Doesn't detract that there was a plan to give the Philippines(sorry for the spelling mistake, but I'm American ya know, you can't expect much better) back to self-governing unlike the British and other colonial empires.

Brick, dear chap,

The Philippines declared independence from the Spanish in 1898 before part of it was purchased by the USA for $20 million. It was then conquered by the USA.

The other part - on my bloody doorstep at the moment, so to speak with 'only' 150,000 displaced persons - was the subject of the - much mistranslated - Bate's Treaty. The war goes on even today!

The Philippines War was the longest overseas war in the history of the USA......so far. Filled with some unspeakable atrocities on both sides. General 'Howling' Smith springs to mind for the atrocities he committed on Samar.

Agree with you re 'Dugout Doug'. His job was to defend the PI. He failed and got promoted. Peter Principle applied perfectly!!!

Apologies for the thread creep guys.

dazdaz
21st Oct 2008, 16:07
Loved the Battle of Britain movie, the best part is when someone says "Your only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" cracks me up every time.

frostbite
21st Oct 2008, 16:56
No, you've got that mixed up. He says "Sure you used enough dynamite there Butch?"

brickhistory
21st Oct 2008, 17:10
Ok, how about, "TAK-A-TAK-A-TAK-A-TAK-A-TAK!"

MerlinV8
21st Oct 2008, 17:43
No it should not be filmed again! it was shot during a time when ww2 was still raw in everyones minds and it would be impossible to recapture the mood of the day, too much CGI these days, Pearl Harbour is a classic example, aeroplanes flying inbetween hangers like star wars starfighters in a unbeliveable way made a movie good in concept, shit! not to mention a bad love storey to bore us all to death! D.Bader would agree!

Shoot movies with 100% real airplanes like the good old days and you will hear no complaints from me :D

DamBusters Yeah!

PaperTiger
21st Oct 2008, 19:36
Seafires and Fireflies line up on the deck of the aircraft carrier HMS Implacable and warm up their engines before taking off.Those err, Fireflies bear an uncanny resemblance to Avengers, don't they ?

PaperTiger
21st Oct 2008, 19:47
First film is delightful for its aeronautical authenticity.For the most part. The afore-mentioned 'Stukas' were far from authentic and a lot of the dogfighting action(sic) was quite amateurish. Planes do not collide or explode like that.

Still, considering the year it was a creditable effort.

The B-25: http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1046589M.jpg

PaperTiger
21st Oct 2008, 19:51
"Don't you shout at me MR WARWICK!"
Warwick: "Put that cigarette out! The mains have gone, Can't you smell gas?"
Harvey: "Don't you yell at me, Mr. Warwick!"

Buster Hyman
21st Oct 2008, 21:10
Cut n Paste from the Wiki caption PT. Sorry.

As a rule, could we please refrain from reminding me about the movie Pearl Harbour? I've just had breakfast!:yuk:

brickhistory
21st Oct 2008, 22:55
Was that Brit knock-off of the really horrible film "Pearl Harbor?"

You see, it's our harbor, so we threw away the superflous 'u.'

When we go to your coastal stopping places for a boat, we'll rent the 'u.'

kevmusic
21st Oct 2008, 23:06
Ah, but that's really rather non-u, don'tcha know! :ok:

AntiCrash
22nd Oct 2008, 01:34
If the redu of Flight of the Phoenix is the calibre of the remake I would have to say NO.

con-pilot
22nd Oct 2008, 01:55
If the redu of Flight of the Phoenix is the calibre of the remake I would have to say

Agreed, 100%. :ok:

Jetex Jim
22nd Oct 2008, 02:12
When we go to your coastal stopping places for a boat, we'll rent the 'u.'
Rent the U. don't tell me Hollywood will remake 'das boot', :yuk:.

IIRC Saturday Night Live did an hillarious concatenation of 'Porkies' and the famous submarine film -German teens take U Boat to Florida for spring break and visit the eponymous titty bar. Hey, at least they got the age of the cast about right for once.

Buster Hyman
22nd Oct 2008, 02:44
Considering there's a Union Jack on the Hawaiian state flag, perhaps it should remain there....

Anyway, watch out for Zeeee-bras!:rolleyes:

Jetex Jim
22nd Oct 2008, 03:13
I have some first hand accounts of U-845's last patrol from four crew members. Their story is far too bizarre to make a movie. Nobody would ever believe it.

In which case, they need to be aired on pprune. Please.

hardhatter
22nd Oct 2008, 06:59
another quote from the movie:

" hello sir, I thought you would be coming in from the sun."

Captain Stable
22nd Oct 2008, 07:56
"You can teach MONKEYS to fly better than that!"

hardhatter
22nd Oct 2008, 08:10
"Don't think, just LOOK FOR THE BASTARDS, and then hit them with everything you've got!

Again!"

:E

MerlinV8
22nd Oct 2008, 12:15
Chaps, I think you will find Harbour is the correct spelling, after all it is the Queens English you know, good day to you....:=

Blacksheep
22nd Oct 2008, 12:39
In which case, they need to be aired on pprune. Please.Too long.

In precis, they set out to patrol off Newfoundland. On the way they were shot up on the surface by an aircraft. Their skipper decided to venture into the harbour at St John's and they entered at night. Crew members were put ashore to gather intelligence, posing as Norwegian merchant seamen. They went to the movies. The U-boat sat on the bottom right through the following day then, when they tried to move off, the tidal flow ran them aground. They backed off and ran on the surface out of St John's. On the way, they were close to the road and were lit up by car headlights, so they submerged and ran aground again. On rocks this time and they busted the rudder getting free. Out at sea, they spent next day on the surface fixing the rudder. A ship came along and they submerged and fired three torpedoes at it, point blank, but none of them hit. While they were repositioning for another go a second ship that they hadn't noticed almost ran them over, damaging the attack periscope. They were then ordered to a mid-ocean rendezvous with other u-boats but, while submerged in daylight, they were run over again by an eastbound convoy that they couldn't avoid because they hadn't had enough time to recharge their batteries the previous night. They were spotted by lookouts and Canadian Mid Ocean Escort Group C1, who were on passage from St John's to Londonderry without a convoy to keep them occupied, took an interest. Forced to the surface by flat batteries after enduring four "Plaster" attacks U-845 surfaced right alongside HMCS St Laurent and ran for it on the surface. This developed into a one and a half hour night time running gun battle in bright moonlight with HMCS ST Laurent, HMS Forester, HMCS Owen Sound and HMCS Swansea, before surrendering and scuttling with their skipper and most of the gun crews dead. 192 depth charges and 480 rounds of 4.7 inch plus heaven knows how much 20mm and 3 inch. Most of the survivors were deaf when they were picked up and taken to Londonderry for internment.

Me Dad's hearing has never been too good since then either...

brickhistory
22nd Oct 2008, 12:59
Merlin,

Chaps, I think you will find Harbour is the correct spelling, after all it is the Queens English you know, good day to you....

I believe that should read "the Queen's English." Or were trying on irony for size?

But as we bade farewell some years past to her family and have the deed to Pearl Harbor, we'll skip the 'u.'

Blacksheep
22nd Oct 2008, 13:02
Cap'n Stable.
"Battle of the Atlantic" Bernard Ireland. Pub. Leo Cooper (Pen & Sword) 2003 ISBN 184415001-1

The relevant bits are on pages 48, 57-58, 71, 83, 96 34, 150 and 196-197.

The debacle that followed the June 1944 capture of U-505, where the CO of USS Guadalcanal almost blew the game by heading in triumph for Dakar with U-505 in tow, is also covered on 197-198.

Naval Enigma was broken in 1941 and there were gap periods of several months during the following years, when rotors and code books were changed and Bletchley had to wait for the RN to capture yet another machine. The US Navy was running 100 Bombes on Naval Enigma signals by March 1944 and supplied around 1,400 decrypts a month to the Admiralty. Bletchley was running only 4 Bombes on Navy Engigma by then, as they were concentrating on decrypting the different Wermacht Enigma signals in preparation for Overlord.

MerlinV8
22nd Oct 2008, 13:05
I don't get it'??

How's doe's ironying something's affect the size's??

brickhistory
22nd Oct 2008, 14:04
You missed the apostrophe in your post lecturing on the proper use of the language.

Philpaz
22nd Oct 2008, 16:12
I think the standard of education in both our countrys is so low that it wont be long before the language has deteriorated to such a level that you wont be able to tell the difference between either versions.
Its "cool" to speak like a rapper over here in Blighty these days, just read some of the posts, they've even started spelling the same as the drivel that comes out of their mouths.
God save the Queen's English!

Captain Stable
22nd Oct 2008, 18:23
Blacksheep:-Cap'n Stable.
"Battle of the Atlantic" Bernard Ireland. Pub. Leo Cooper (Pen & Sword) 2003 ISBN 184415001-1Thanks for that. I shall try to find a copy.

In general, I think you may have misunderstood the deciphering process. The Germans didn't change the machine but the rotor settings and plugboard connections with each codebook change. Therefore it did not require finding a new machine but either new cribs (which sometimes were achieved by the famous "gardening" missions) or capturing new codebooks. It was not the machines that were important.

Yes, the USN did some sterling work producing bombes and running them. What was severely lacking was their work in grabbing codebooks, which was what U571 was all about.

The capture of U505 was a total disaster thanks to the total incompetence and stupidity of Daniel Gallery. Admiral King and the President were all for putting Gallery in front of a court martial, but were persuaded not to by Winston Churchill, who wanted the whole thing hushed up and no further fuss to be made.

And that was the entirety of the USN's contribution to capturing Enigma material - a fiasco.

MerlinV8
23rd Oct 2008, 01:01
Kia Ora cuzzie bro, I actually speak Kiwi.

The irony is that I never cared in the first place!

My comment was directly related to the thread subject and people who start moaning about spelling and grammer have nothing better to do with their time, hey if it was unreadable I would understand.

As for the Queen, I live in the southern hemisphere and she can get flushed down her own throne for all I care.

Now lets get back to the movie shall we, Pearl Harbour crap, Battle of Britain good.

I hope you find this ace aye bro

innuendo
23rd Oct 2008, 02:20
Ahem,
"about spelling and grammer"
even the spell check brings this one up.:hmm:

Blacksheep
23rd Oct 2008, 07:21
...did not require finding a new machine It did when they replaced the three rotor machine with the four rotor machine, though. Me Dad had the cover off the code book recovered from U-845. They didn't get the machine 'cos it was bolted to the table.

Incidentally, they boarded after the scuttling charges had gone off and the sub was already sinking. :ooh:

Rather foolish, but they were only a bunch of teenagers after all. ;)

Jetex Jim
23rd Oct 2008, 07:28
Incidentally, they boarded after the scuttling charges had gone off and the sub was already sinking. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/icon25.gif

Cracking stuff, Blacksheep.

Thanks for that.

Captain Stable
23rd Oct 2008, 08:11
Blacksheep, they managed to crack "Shark" Enigma without getting hold of a four-rotor machine. It was not necessary, although it helped. My original point was that the USN did nothing to further getting codebooks, daily settings, etc.

I am not denigrating in any way the bravery and achievements of your dad who, I believe from deduction was RCN, yes? What I am denigrating is the total rewriting of history by Hollywood in order to tell a lie - that lie being that the USA won the war single-handedly instead of contributing a load of incompetence and stupidity as far as breaking Enigma was concerned.

teeteringhead
23rd Oct 2008, 08:52
[we] ...... have the deed to Pearl Harbor, .... yeah, but the RN finally sorted out USS Phoenix, even if it did take 'em another 41 years .......:ok:

Blacksheep
23rd Oct 2008, 11:56
...I believe from deduction was RCN,Royal Navy, actually. HMS Forester was senior ship in C1 group at the time.

No arguments with your views either Cap'n. It is only through such interchanges that we learn new things. :ok:

AndoniP
23rd Oct 2008, 15:18
But I suppose the difference is that it was your interests being threatened so that's the time for you joining in the war. I wonder if that rationale can be applied to anyone else?



the americans (with british in tow) and certain arab countries?



if the primary audience (thus $) is the US and those supplying the costs to make said film on the hope that they'll make a return on their investment require certain 'adjustments' to history in the pursuit of a buck, then that's going to be inevitable


certain adjustments in history? like U-571?

kind regards

CATIII-NDB
23rd Oct 2008, 17:48
Always remember these are vehicles of entertainment and so historical accuracy is likely to be sacrificed. You can argue that manipulating the story to give undue prominance to a group to "sell it to them" is unfair, but has this always been the case.

CAT III

Jetex Jim
23rd Oct 2008, 20:20
Always remember these are vehicles of entertainment and so historical accuracy is likely to be sacrificed. You can argue that manipulating the story to give undue prominance to a group to "sell it to them" is unfair, but has this always been the case.


The very high cost of making movies has lead to production strategies intended to maximise marketing potential. These include editing the story, as required to keep the audience happy -- alternative versions are shown to test audiences and the most 'pleasing' version is the one that goes on general release.

Any vision the director or, persish the thought, the writer(s) might have had will, unless they have sufficient prestige to demand 'final cut', fall by the wayside. At the end the typical movie goer, who is a long way from being someone who's first interest is historical accuracy, is the audience for whom the movie will be 'tailored' to. And, as the typical audience for first run movies is a teenage one, they are who the marketeers will try to please first. Hence the popularity of endless movies and remakes about comic heroes, and the like.

So, it would seem that the 'price' of maintaining a world class movie industry is a requirement to turn out endless reels of unmitigated twaddle. Oh well.

brickhistory
23rd Oct 2008, 22:56
Blacksheep, and a nice shot it was too. Turned around some other Argie gray boats and let 'em know it was a 'big boy's' game they started.

The last US warship survivor of the Pearl Harbor attack is in Baltimore Harbor (another boat parking place we own without the benefit of the extra 'u'). I forget her name as I type, but she's a US Coast Guard vessel.

CATIII and Jetex, exactly.

Buster Hyman
24th Oct 2008, 00:28
Shouldn't that be Coast Gard?:hmm:

MerlinV8
24th Oct 2008, 00:55
I find the defense of the u full of colour and flavour, but no honour will be gained by putting on your armour, as I feel it is only a rumour that you should harbour any ill intent towards your global neighbour :ok:

brickhistory
24th Oct 2008, 01:04
Buster, well played! :ok:




merlin, in this case, I most definitely blame the French.

con-pilot
24th Oct 2008, 01:06
Shouldn't that be Coast Gard?

I don't know if you were trying to be cute or insulting.

It is the United States Coast Guard.


The United States Coast Guard is composed of many very brave, well trained people that put their lives on the line every day to save other lives and sometimes lose their own lives trying to do just that.

(Yes, I know you were on the "u" difference, but you picked the wrong gro'u'p of people.)

Buster Hyman
24th Oct 2008, 01:20
:eek: Gee-Zuzz Con....back the truck up there buddy. That's a bluddy long bow to draw a parallel between spelling banter & insulting the USCG!

Besides, I'm not cute...I'm adorable!

MerlinV8
24th Oct 2008, 01:28
Buster, Go directly to gaol and do not collect $200......:p

con-pilot
24th Oct 2008, 01:34
Buster, Go directly to gaol and do not collect $200......

Yeah, next time pick on the Demoucrats. :p

Sorry about that, over reacted, Scotch you know. :ok:

Better now I am.

Buster Hyman
24th Oct 2008, 01:47
Perhaps you should stick to the Borbon? ;)

con-pilot
24th Oct 2008, 01:55
Borbon

Naw, flew over it a few times, but don't think I'd like it. :p

(And I certainly can't drink the place, I guess I could drink Scotch there however. :ok:)

MUNICIPALITY OF BORBON (http://elgu.ncc.gov.ph/ecommunity/borbon-cebu/)

Jetex Jim
24th Oct 2008, 05:01
the Queen's English
Yes, the Queen is English; but some of her cousins are German.

MerlinV8
24th Oct 2008, 05:42
Her Hubby Phil is from Denmark

The current Queen's name is Lizzy Windsor but up until 1955 it was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgouse..true!

But she re-named it the House of Wndsor instead...in Daddy's name


Lots of French and Germans in there too.....

Ace Rimmer
24th Oct 2008, 07:13
I think you'll find it was Saxe Coburg Gotha and it was changed to Windsor in 1915 by Lizzie's grandad. In '55 it was changed to Mountbatten-Windsor (Mountbatten being Battenburg before '15) in deference to Phil the Greek (or Dane as the Greeks imported their RF from there)

Mr Grimsdale
24th Oct 2008, 09:30
Perhaps you should stick to the Borbon? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif


Jolly nice biscuits (cookies) too, personally I prefer a custard cream.

Windy Militant
24th Oct 2008, 10:04
Now that Dreamworks have bought a share in Bollywood they should do an all singing and dancing version in Honour of Squadron Leader Mahindra Singh Pujji DFC BA LB and his colleagues. :ok:
be more accurate than Pearl Harbour at any rate. :}

ExSp33db1rd
24th Oct 2008, 10:20
Thought it was S/Ldr Phani Tikkala DFC and Bar ? ( with the big moustache, of course )

Blacksheep
24th Oct 2008, 12:37
...changed to Mountbatten-Windsor So, how come her grandsons are a couple of Whales?






..er, sorry, that should be Wales.

MerlinV8
24th Oct 2008, 13:51
Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

The most powerful Welsh ruler at any given time was generally known as King of Britons. In the 12th century and the 13th century, this title evolved into that of Prince of Wales

So how about those Mets eh?

brickhistory
24th Oct 2008, 14:09
"Football" will once again invade Britain this coming Sunday.


The NFL's New Orleans Saints (home team) vs. San Diego Chargers (away team).

MerlinV8
24th Oct 2008, 14:44
Is it super bowl Sunday? go the Saints!

Don't follow American football but the southern state's need a break!!

ThreadBaron
24th Oct 2008, 19:40
So to end the thread creep ... there is no way anyone could improve upon the dogfight scene.

PaperTiger
24th Oct 2008, 20:01
there is no way anyone could improve upon the dogfight scene.Oh yes, one of two ways.

a) delete all those model planes, delete the explosion splodges which were simply painted onto the film, delete the similar distant 'dots', eliminate repetition of the same frame(s), don't try to fool us by just reversing the image; OR
b) do some really good 21st-century CGI*.

* Not the "Flyboys"-standard rubbish but some good stuff like "Mayday" on the Discovery Channel (or whtever you get over there).

marcopolosnap
25th Oct 2008, 20:37
"Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Mountbatten" - As in Francis Albert Sinatra?