[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by MoMo

I'm with you, Shawn.

Then I take back everything I said.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Hey man, I'm just asking some questions here. I don't claim to be a film making expert. I realize making movies is expensive, and every thing added to the film drives up the budget.
Consider this about movie budgets, though- I would think the money that a studio allocates for the making of a film would depend in large part on the director involved. I would think a project involving Steven Spielberg, or someone of that caliber (who make movies that make money) would have a lot more money allocated to it than one being made by a less well known director. If he wanted to make a WW1 film, and use real airplanes to do it, I don't think he (Spielberg) would have a problem getting it done.

Hey man, I'm not trying to get on your case! I do agree with your point about Steven Spielberg having 'carte-blance' access when it comes to making his own movies, but him & George Lucas are more of an "exception rather than to the general rule"...I'll give you that.

I will cite as an example to clarify my point here. Did you watch the film "300"? The movie were made with actors role-playing their battle scenes in front of a bluescreen. IIRC, all the lush scenery and backgrounds were rendered then added later by CGI-effects artists to create a landscape so realistic that it's really hard to tell (except to those with sense for discerning details) even if it were filmed using real landscapes and vistas. The movie grossed in excess of over $200 million + with a budget of only slightly less than $60 mils! If that is not a fine example of a "movie that makes money on a tight budget", I don't know what else is.

Originally Posted by MoMo

Yes, sure Fly, I agree with many of your points on safety and such, but don't you think that there are thousands of fliers out there who would give their eye teeth to fly WW2 replicas? Don't forget, CGI is killing off stunt fliers, stunt men, et al in order to ruin movies by rendering unrealistic scenarios which just don't work? Fly Boys had a really poor script, too many undeveloped characters, was badly paced because of the intrusive love story, but just might have crawled out the mire if it had had great, realistic flying scenes/sequences. The Blue Max managed to achieve this balance. Aces High managed it better.

I fear that the WW1 airwar genre ( which found its zenith in the Hollywood movies of the 20s and 30s ) has only been revived because of the utilisation of CGI, with all its possibilities.

I see a lousy remake of Dawn Patrol on the sun tinged horizon.

Point well taken buddy. There's gotta be a happy medium that would accomodate both 'CGI and real world' to co-exist together in today's instant money
making business agenda for the film industry, right? I think I clearly made my point above seeing how a film like "300" could make so much money for it's
owners by intigrating CGI rendered imageries and techniques to that movie. Besides, do you honestly believe that Peter Jackson, who is now filming a remake of The Dambusters, would not take full advantage and benefits of using such tools to recreate the Rhur Dams, bouncing bombs and 'fill-in' Lancaster bombers and whatever else are needed there to demonstrate the power of CGI technology at his own disposal? Don't get me wrong, CGI is not the "end all to be all", and there are no substitutes for doing flying scenes with real airplanes and superb piloting skills and what have you, but today's CGI effects have come a long way to adding a sense of balance and believable reality to the film we all watch and hopefully get entertained with. Fact of the matter is, CGI is here to stay, and there isn't much in the way we could do something about it.

My .02...

[MoMo]

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Shawn hurted my feelings. All I did was to agree with him. Ya jist cain't win !

We're on a cleft stick, Fly: they' ve gotta use CGI or the movies won't get made; backers want to see C.G.I. bucks on-screen; C.G.I. gets over-used because they"can do "; stunts and
building replicas which can fly is expensive.

One day they'll get the message.

Too late.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

I will cite as an example to clarify my point here. Did you watch the film "300"? The movie were made with actors role-playing their battle scenes in front of a bluescreen. IIRC, all the lush scenery and backgrounds were rendered then added later by CGI-effects artists to create a landscape so realistic that it's really hard to tell (except to those with sense for discerning details) even if it were filmed using real landscapes and vistas. The movie grossed in excess of over $200 million + with a budget of only slightly less than $60 mils! If that is not a fine example of a "movie that makes money on a tight budget", I don't know what else is.
Hey man, I'm not trying to get on your case! I do agree with your point about Steven Spielberg having 'carte-blance' access when it comes to making his own movies, but him & George Lucas are more of an "exception rather than to the general rule"...I'll give you that.

Point well taken buddy. There's gotta be a happy medium that would accomodate both 'CGI and real world' to co-exist together in today's instant money
making business agenda for the film industry, right? I think I clearly made my point above seeing how a film like "300" could make so much money for it's
owners by intigrating CGI rendered imageries and techniques to that movie. Besides, do you honestly believe that Peter Jackson, who is now filming a remake of The Dambusters, would not take full advantage and benefits of using such tools to recreate the Rhur Dams, bouncing bombs and 'fill-in' Lancaster bombers and whatever else are needed there to demonstrate the power of CGI technology at his own disposal? Don't get me wrong, CGI is not the "end all to be all", and there are no substitutes for doing flying scenes with real airplanes and superb piloting skills and what have you, but today's CGI effects have come a long way to adding a sense of balance and believable reality to the film we all watch and hopefully get entertained with. Fact of the matter is, CGI is here to stay, and there isn't much in the way we could do something about it.

My .02...

Please don't be offended Fly but, in my opinion, The 300 was the biggest load of unrealistic BS that I've recently had the misfortune to endure ... it would have made the Village People proud .

Meet the Spartans appears to have summed it up well ... .

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Please don't be offended Fly but, in my opinion, The 300 was the biggest load of unrealistic BS that I've recently had the misfortune to endure ... it would have made the Village People proud .

Meet the Spartans appears to have summed it up well ... .

Offended??? I hate you for not liking 300!

[MoMo]

flyXwire

Re: Movies and models and bouncing bombs!

---

Offended??? I hate you for not liking 300!

I liked " 300 ". It was just an animated comic book which had pretensions as art. As I posted before, in my review of the movie, the narrative omitted some of the less savoury aspects of Spartan culture, but that's Hollywood. But to bring songs like " Join the Navy " into it......well, that's just too, too much !

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by MoMo

...But to bring songs like " Join the Navy " into it......well, that's just too, too much !

Oh, how so???

[rdenham]

Originally Posted by MoMo

Movies and models and bouncing bombs!

The Dambusters was influential in George Lukas's first Star Wars film. The ending was inspired by the attacks on the Rhur dams. Read ' Deathstar' for 'Dams'

This video which uses audio from the Death Star scene of Star Wars & clips from "The Dambusters." is truly amazing.

YouTube - The Dambusters a la Star Wars

[flyXwire]

As the RAF marks its 90th anniversary, one of its earliest adversaries is to be celebrated as a sensitive hero in a controversial German film

David Smith
The Observer,
Sunday March 16 2008

(This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday March 16 2008 on p. 25 of the News section.)

As Britain prepares to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Royal Air Force, Germany is reclaiming the First World War flying ace known as the Red Baron as a national hero.

On Tuesday, Henry Allingham, 111, the oldest British survivor of the war, will join guests at a commemorative dinner at the RAF Museum in Hendon, north London. On 1 April, the RAF will mark the service's birthday with a spectacular aerial display over London. Then a week later, the controversial film The Red Baron will have its premiere in Germany, with a UK release to follow.

In Germany, where painful milestones of war often pass without ceremony, £14m has been spent on the new film about the country's most famous fighter pilot, Manfred von Richthofen, making it one of the most expensive in the country's history. The Red Baron, who shot down 80 British, Canadian and Australian pilots, is portrayed as a brilliant and sensitive hero in the English-language production.

The film has been described as breaking a taboo which for decades has seen German soldiers generally portrayed as callous zealots or conscripts tormented by conscience. But there has been renewed appetite for exploring the country's wartime past since the release of Downfall in 2004, and later this year Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg, the German colonel who tried to assassinate Hitler, in Valkyrie

Nikolai Müllerschön, writer and director of The Red Baron, said: 'Historically there has been a reluctance, and there are strong voices in Germany still saying we're not allowed to do this: a film about a German war hero. But the film makes a very clear statement against war. In it Richthofen says that he understands everyone has turned this world into a slaughterhouse and the war cannot be won. He says he's not going to be the immortal god that Berlin wants him to be; he knew millions were lured into the trenches with such propaganda. He had been turned into one of the first pop stars in history by one of the biggest propaganda machines ever seen.'

The Red Baron casts rising star Matthias Schweighöfer as Richthofen and two British actors in key roles. Joseph Fiennes, star of Shakespeare in Love and Enemy at the Gates, plays Captain Roy Brown, a Canadian initially hailed as the Red Baron's conqueror, a claim he never made and later discredited. Lena Headey, best known for 300 and television's Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, is the love interest Käte Otersdorf, a nurse who may or may not have had a romance with Richthofen in real life.

Richthofen was 25 when he was killed in combat near the Somme at noon on 21 April 1918, but the exact cause has been debated ever since. Peter Kilduff, who has written six books about the Red Baron, recently made a potentially dramatic discovery when he bought a 1932 German veterans magazine on the auction website eBay. Buried inside was an article entitled 'The Truth About Richthofen's Death - Eyewitness Account by Hermann Bink'. Kilduff translated it into English and found the allegation that Richthofen survived a crash landing only to be stabbed by watching soldiers.

Bink was quoted: 'It is possible that the engine of Richthofen's airplane was hit and perhaps he was as well. But in any event, we saw him climb out of the airplane alive! Several brown forms fell on him with drawn daggers and presumably stabbed him. They were British colonial troops, which were opposite us.'

The magazine quoted other supposed eyewitnesses in support of Bink. But Kilduff, whose book Red Baron: Life and Death of an Ace, rejects the claims. Instead he backs the view of historian and retired cardiologist Geoffrey Miller, who believes the Red Baron was probably brought down by Sergeant Cedric Popkin, an Australian machine gunner. The angle of the entrance and exit wounds on Richthofen's body indicates that he was hit as he was trying to turn away from Popkin's fire. Miller said: 'There is little doubt that the bullet penetrated his heart and was fatal.'

The RAF - an amalgamation of the Royal Naval Air Service, to which Henry Allingham belonged, and the army's Royal Flying Corps - will hold a series of events including a commemorative service at St Clement Danes Church in London and a concert in Birmingham. It will issue service badges to 25 veterans and, most spectacularly on 1 April, stage an aerial display by the Red Arrows above central London culminating at the London Eye.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Bink was quoted: 'It is possible that the engine of Richthofen's airplane was hit and perhaps he was as well. But in any event, we saw him climb out of the airplane alive! Several brown forms fell on him with drawn daggers and presumably stabbed him. They were British colonial troops, which were opposite us.'



I don't think we will ever know the truth for sure what really happened on 21st April 1918.
They keep trying to change it...A coverup ?? ......Best to leave history alone
JP