New Battle of Britain film

[BarryW]

I have seen a news report that Ridley Scott is going to direct a new Battle of Britain film and a script is being written.

If this is not 'fake news' is this a good thing or not?

The good...
no need to substitute Buchon's for 109Es as modern CGI and restored aircraft can be used. Likewise a plus would be the ability to show Mk1 Spits and truly reflect the role played by the Hurricane.

The bad..
It cannot possibly have a cast as good as the original film.
It cannot possibly top that script either, there are just so many classic quotes....
Any bets on another stitch-up from a Hollywood film in which the truth is sacrificed for 'drama' or the US Dollar to show Americans winning the war for us. No doubt the drama of what 'the few' did will not be enough for the Hollywood, they will have to have some sweet sugary romantic twist focussing no doubt on some 'oversexed, over here' square jaw Yank pulling some WAAF with the whole film about him and her. We have been stitched up by Hollywood much too often in the past to have any confidence it won't happen again.

To put it in a nutshell, the truth will be sacrificed for Hollywood trivia...

What do others think?

[Guest]

Barry, knowing Hollywood and their eschewing of historical fact, the scene will probably be a few plucky Brits, down to their last few Spitfires & then a horde of P-51Ds will come sweeping in at the last minute to save us all from the beastly Hun!

America saves the day once again!

[spanner570]

Perhaps it would be better to wait and see, rather than have a pop at our American friends before the film is even released.

Just my own take on the comments thus far....and no offence intended.

[Dave W]

Perhaps it would be better to wait and see, rather than have a pop at our American friends before the film is even released.

Just my own take on the comments thus far....and no offence intended.

If 'Red Tails' is anything to go by ,its probably not worth getting your hopes up.

[Guest]

Perhaps it would be better to wait and see, rather than have a pop at our American friends before the film is even released.

Just my own take on the comments thus far....and no offence intended.

Well how many films would you like me to list where the facts have been altered to suit a certain viewpoint Ron? The list isn't short!

Whilst I'd like to feel as you do, previous experience tells me not to be overly hopeful.

[Robert1968]

Lets not forget in the spring and summer of 1940 there were very few yanks in U.K. As they had not joined the war until 1941 ( pearl harbour ) yes there was Eagke Squadron ( volenteers )
It's true that CGI would make it better but not true to form as if the truth were there then surely it should be more hurricanes involved in the film than spits ( yes we all kind of see the Spitfire mk1 and 2a as the true hero but the hurricane I'm sure I read shot down more enemy aircraft?
Going by actors to reclaim the great roles, there are quite a few good actors out there ( not gems like the original )
I think if they do a film remake they have to take into account both sides of he struggle. It cannot be 1 sided as the audience needs to know about operation sea lion
The struggle of the operations staff from the Waaf to the aircraftsmen fixing the aircraft the struggles of the pilots ( lack of )
The loss on both sides
We have to be careful that we don't upset the history too much
There are so many things to consider when making an epic film

[stona]

Lets not forget in the spring and summer of 1940 there were very few yanks in U.K. As they had not joined the war until 1941 ( pearl harbour ) yes there was Eagke Squadron ( volenteers )

The British were very keen to make the most of the handful that were here. A Foreign Office memorandum, written at the height of the Battle, was explicit in expressing a wish to manipulate US audiences.

"Publicity of exploits of individual American pilots in our service, even if exaggerated, would have an excellent effect, and would give the hero-worshipping public of the United States a feeling of identity with the conflict."

Unfortunately the propaganda campaign was to be centred on a certain Pilot Officer William Fiske III from New York, who was seen as the ideal subject for such an effort. A quick look at his biography explains why he was deemed so eligible (rich, Cambridge educated (making him almost one of us), Olympian etc.) The Luftwaffe were unaware of the campaign and the rear gunner of a supposedly vulnerable Ju 87 severely limited the propaganda opportunities by fatally wounding Fiske who, badly burned, made a forced landing in his Hurricane only to succumb to his wounds a couple of days later. In the end the British had to make do with a trans-Atlantic broadcast of the poor fellow's funeral.
We can hardly blame the Americans if they throw the propaganda back at us 80 years later . I fear the worst, but hope for the best! You can have all the CGI and Hollywood stars you like, there definitely won't be anything better than Susannah York in her undies.

Cheers

Steve

[BarryW]

Spot on with your last comment Steve....
Just for those who may have forgotten or who are sadly uninitiated...
[ATTACH]279440[/ATTACH]
or a bit better this
[ATTACH]279441[/ATTACH]

[Ian M]

I am still awaiting the new Dambusters film that was announced ages ago. The last I heard of that was they were making the full sized Lancasters for the ground sets and just getting the last of the "rings" film out the way.
Steven Fry was said to be doing the script...
Back on topic. If they can make it I will see it. Cgi is so good these days, or can be, no reason to use substitute aircraft.
British actors, plenty of them, many also young enough to fit the pilot roles.
No need to worry about a certain actress showing her drawers Barry, these days I recon they could fill a bus with pretty young things only to willing to get naked....

[Alan 45]

I'll take the view of it being entertainment as I do with all war movies no matter how based on fact they claim to be , you can just sit back and enjoy them for what they are then good or bad

[stona]

I'll take the view of it being entertainment as I do with all war movies no matter how based on fact they claim to be , you can just sit back and enjoy them for what they are then good or bad

I would agree with that, and just add that the first prerequisite of a good war film is that it has to be a good film, gauged by any standard. 'Ice Cold in Alex' is not a true story, whatever the opening credits may claim, but it is a good film which just happens to be set in WW2. 'Das Boot' would be a great film if it was set on a spaceship in some future war, it just happens to be set on a U-boat during WW2. The same applies to any good war film, however closely, or loosely based on fact. On the other hand, this is also why U-571 is such a godawful movie, quite aside from the historical mumbo-jumbo. Simply having a good story to tell, be it the BoB, Stalingrad or another, is not enough to ensure a good film!
Cheers
Steve

[Snowman]

This why we have the movies, to escape reality.....o_O

Even the "actuality" & "historic" programmes on National Geographic and similar channels typically have to be watched with a tub of salt at hand.

The intent is to entertain.

[Alan 45]

I would agree with that, and just add that the first prerequisite of a good war film is that it has to be a good film, gauged by any standard. 'Ice Cold in Alex' is not a true story, whatever the opening credits may claim, but it is a good film which just happens to be set in WW2. 'Das Boot' would be a great film if it was set on a spaceship in some future war, it just happens to be set on a U-boat during WW2. The same applies to any good war film, however closely, or loosely based on fact. On the other hand, this is also why U-571 is such a godawful movie, quite aside from the historical mumbo-jumbo. Simply having a good story to tell, be it the BoB, Stalingrad or another, is not enough to ensure a good film!
Cheers
Steve

I agree with that Steve , I think the big bug bear with things like this is it's a British thing , it's like it has to be as true as possible or it's no good but in all true stories put to film it is always dramatic and I find once you accept that you can enjoy it more if it's good , I doubt they could make a BoB movie absolutely accurate without it being less than five hours long so you do need a back story to fill in the between main points of the battle after all it was nearly a four month conflict , I just hope it has more hurricanes in this one

[stona]

The 1969 'Battle of Britain' did a very good job of reproducing the official history of the Battle as it was then. We know that to some extent this simply reinforced the myth of that Battle, but it still made a fine film. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make another film attempting to do the same thing. I suspect we will end up with a story set against the background of the Battle, hopefully accurately portrayed, rather than a film purporting to re-tell the story. Would it not be the job of a good documentary maker to update the story of the Battle, in light of the better understanding we have in 2017 of all the complicated factors that influenced, compared with 1969?
I understand the trepidation of the British audience, as Hollywood attempts a subject close to its heart, particularly given recent Hollywood efforts in the genre.
Cheers
Steve

[Robert1968]

Thanks Steve for showing me my age ( 1969 I was only 1 ( I remember the film so well and don't ask me how many times I've watched it but when I first saw it in the 70s I thought Suzzanah York was a hottie back then! But yen again I fell head over heals for they lassie in Ice cold in Alex ( Sylvia sims was it )
Love the classy women!!
Better not let my wife read this or I'm for it
[ATTACH]279448[/ATTACH]