Red Tails

[johnnyboy]

I watched it and IMHO it was a good way to spend a 1 1/2 hours, Was it accurate no but I knew that before going but the action scenes took me right back to reading my Commando books as a kid but in colour and with sound "Brilliant"

Ps I spent far longer watching ****Ball last night and I really did not enjoy that

PPS. On the subject of the B17 a Low Budget Movie that needs to be watched

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558575/

"Excellent"

Edited June 25, 2012 by johnnyboy

[Navy Bird]

It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming remake of The Dambusters pans out, because Peter Jackson is interested in historical accuracy and honouring heroes. But then, it's not a Hollywood movie.

And isn't Peter Jackson the money behind Wingnut Wings?

Also, Lucas and crew knew they were making a fictional movie inspired by real events. To compensate for that, a companion documentary film called "Double Victory" (meaning victory over racism and facism) was produced in parallel. It aired on HBO when the film opened in theatres, then hit the History Channel, etc. and is available on the DVD/Blueray disc. Lucasfilm Ltd. promoted Double Victory in a series of museum tours across the US back in February in honour of Black History Month. By all accounts Double Victory has been well received (where Red Tails was not). So I think we can cut George some slack for knowing that he made a fictitious movie, but also having the brains (and budget) to tell the real story.

Cheers,

Bill

Edited June 25, 2012 by Navy Bird

[Super Aereo]

I loved Iron Sky, but it is a movie that seems to have divided the public: people either love or hate it.

I saw it at the Prince Charles cinema in Soho and my friends and I were laughing our heads off.

[Teenmodeller]

It's a good film, although frustrating that hardly any of the actual airmen were named in it. Still, a pretty good film, and I enjoyed it.

[happy1]

Ya I did too!!

Paul

[mumbles]

And isn't Peter Jackson the money behind Wingnut Wings?

Yes, and The Vintage Aviator Limited that is populating the skies around a particular part of NZ with WW1 reproductions and new builds as well.

[mumbles]

The thing that bugs me about accuracy calls in movies like this, is that often they seem they could have got things right with little or no extra effort, especially where CGI is concerned. If people can design their own skins for home sims, I'm sure it isn't beyond ILM to do accurate ones. The changes seem to be based on audience expectation, and in turn the expectation (usually patronisingly low) of said audience to keep up with who the goodies and the baddies are for one. The thing is, I think the audience for the most part wouldn't have any trouble with this anyway, and also wouldn't know or care if it is accurate or not. So by making things accurate, most of the audience won't notice, but you'll gain a whole tonne of respect from those who do.

It isn't a documentary, but why bother doing it wrong when you could just as easily do it right?

[Enzo the Magnificent]

The changes seem to be based on audience expectation, and in turn the expectation (usually patronisingly low) of said audience to keep up with who the goodies and the baddies are

The Makers of Star Trek found this to be a problem. In one episode of Deep Space Nine a Galaxy class starship, the USS Odyssey, was destroyed in the Gamma Quadrant. The plot had mentioned the name of the ship numerous times, together with the names of the crew, yet Paramount still had to deal with irate viewers complaining about the destruction of the Enterprise and the death of Picard and crew.

So Paramount made it a rule that Galaxy class ships should never be shown onscreen while The Next Generation was still in production.

They forgot this rule a few years later and showed an Intrepid class ship, the USS Bellerophon, in another episode of DSN. Cue complaints from irate viewers wanting to know why they hadn't been told that USS Voyager had got back from the Delta Quadrant.

[gwing1500]

while we are on about accuracy, did anyone see 'Edge of War' on good old Discovery History, Sun. night 1/7 , about the Falklands War, I didn't realise the General Belgrano was a destroyer. suppose it makes a difference from everything being a battleship.

[John]

Red Tails has been and gone from Cineworld in Falkirk - it didn't hang around for long.

John

[593jones]

while we are on about accuracy, did anyone see 'Edge of War' on good old Discovery History, Sun. night 1/7 , about the Falklands War, I didn't realise the General Belgrano was a destroyer. suppose it makes a difference from everything being a battleship.

The General Belgrano was actually a Brooklyn class light cruiser, ex-US navy. I think only the US operated battleships in 1982.

[Mike]

I saw it the other night, and found it difficult to keep focused on it. I thought the plot was hackneyed, the acting wooden - especially the words of the German "lead" pilot, which were all spat out with overly-dramatic German-ness. The laws of physics and aerodynamics were ignored, whilst FX were only passable, and barely any better than you could expect in a video game in this day and age. It seems that wherever you hit an aircraft there is plenty of fuel stored there, and the main spar of a B-17 is made from chocolate, which melts the moment the engine goes on fire, causing the wings to fold. They also seem to have a queer idea of how a 20mm cannon shell affects the human body. Without giving too much plot away, one pilot gets hit in the mid-chest several times by an oncoming German aircraft that manages to shoot small holes in him THROUGH the whole length of a RR Merlin engine's cylinder block.

I really wanted to like it due to the alleged subject matter, but it was instead instantly forgettable, and not even worth keeping around for the flying sequences

[Procopius]

They also seem to have a queer idea of how a 20mm cannon shell affects the human body.

Me262 had 30mm cannon.

[Julien]

I think I will wait till they show this one on the TV

Julien

[Richey]

Since reading this thread for the first time a few weeks back, I haven't re-visited Britmodeller. I hate to sound belligerent, and I'm certainly not trying to start a flame argument, but some of the opinions in this conversation so far are bordering on the terribly daft. Offensively so, in fact.

Red Tails is a film. The purpose of a film (usually) is to convey a story. Stories sometimes get embellished over time with artistic licence. As long as the main tenets of the story aren't lost, then no-body generally minds. The producers and directors of the film set out to raise awareness of the Tuskagee Airmen, and yes, they probably were considering how best to do that with their balance sheet in mind, but if money-grabbing was their primary concern, they'd just do more Rom-Com stuff with cheaper sets, or a science fiction project with markting spin-offs (toys & video games = £££)

There are hundreds of thousands of people (most importantly, the younger ones) who know more about the Tuskagee airmen than they did a year ago. A block-buster film with exaggerarted effects is always going to get more subscriptions than a book or even a free online database, so that's what they did. Many people have been educated, so mission accomplished. Whether or not the sub-types of aircraft depicted are the right ones, or the Luftwaffe's markings aren't quite right is so irrelevant as to be not worthy of comment. The suggestion that the film is somehow disrespectful to those pioneering men simply because of such minutae is, in itself, a very dodgy statement.

Steven Speilberg's record as a film producer is so-so, and In any case, I'm not a film. But he is the man, who told the story of Oskar Schindler to a wider audience than anyone else could have done. And if there were costume and prop errors in Schindler's List, is that a semetic slur on the Jewish race? Or just one of those things, because let's face it, it's only a bloody film.

As per many others on these fora, the 1968 Battle of Britain was a massive influence on me, and even though I've seen it dozens of times in nearly 25 years, I still couldn't less about the aircraft not being accurate. The story is upheld.

[Mike]

Richey, there's so much to rip into this film about that it's difficult not to sound like an anal aviation fan. My main issue was the poor story and rubbish dialogue... if they were up to snuff, the rest could have been forgiven. If a war film can't hold my interest, it has to be really bad, cos I'll watch any old tat as long as there are loud explosions and a bit of a story with believable characters.

I think those aspects probably prevented even more people from hearing about the brave Tuskegee airmen, as news of a bad film puts people off going in droves. I'm very glad I didn't waste any money going to watch it at the flicks. People should watch the old film with Larry Fishburn in it... in fact, I'm surprised it's not been aired recently on the goggle-box to cash in on any interest.

[SkippyBing]

I didn't mind the aircraft being inaccurate.

I did mind shoddy CGI from what's supposed to be one of the world's premier companies in the industry, two dimensional characters straight from cliché central and some of the worst dialogue I've heard since 'The Room'*.

It's not that it's a film where they've taken a few liberties with the aviation side of things, it's that it's a bad film.

Incidentally not sure why you brought Speilberg into it, George Lucas made 'Red Tails'.

*Search for clips on You Tube, wonder that it was ever released.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

one pilot gets hit in the mid-chest several times by an oncoming German aircraft that manages to shoot small holes in him THROUGH the whole length of a RR Merlin engine's cylinder block.

[pedant]

Packard Merlin

[/pedant]

[Panzer Vor!!!]

ive not seen it yet but i will watch it as soon as i can but theirs one point id like to make

if it cost x amount to make badly??

how much extra to make it right???

not a lot i dont think#with the budgets of some films matching small countries its not a lot to ask for is it??? would it cost a lot for the cgi guys to make sure the markings are right???? in the right place ???? no

but then does john doe care i think not

went to tank fest this weekend came away disappointed cos i didnt see more tanks my mate who dose nt model thought it was great he saw tanks and learnt a bit as well

and thats it ladies hollywood makes pics for john doe not us modellers or enthusiats john doe who goes on a sat nite to be entertained not given an history lesson

Edited July 2, 2012 by hood

[gwing1500]

The General Belgrano was actually a Brooklyn class light cruiser, ex-US navy. I think only the US operated battleships in 1982.

I realise that, it was just me being sarcastic about 'Discovery' and there usual lack of research.I've watched programs were destroyers have been called 'battleships'. I wonder if any research is actually carried out. It's got to the stage where quantity of programs seems to count more then quality of programs. waiting for the day when a Lancaster gets called a Spitfire, it's bound to happen.

[ciuncky]

Well, readed again through the latest replies, and many of you seem to be angry for inacuracy of the planes etc.

The answer is simple (after I read someone's reply, but can't find it anymore with this new forum design). Accurate designs means more research and more money spend. Sometimes it's cheaper just to find a 3d model online and buy the rights for it. Yet, the initial modeller did not made the plane with accuracy or a certain scope in mind. At least, that's how I do see the problem.

Another thingy might be the possibility to be forced to pay for displaying certain names, brands, designs etc.

As a very good example (yet from a totally different area), some racing simulators have car damage only for a couple of cars, while for others not - not because of technical issues, but because the developer either refused to get it's car displayed as a wreck or charged to much for structure blueprints. And obviosly, if not working after blueprints a 100% realistic damage can not be simulated, therefore the car manufacturer could sue you for building a negative impression about their cars.

Sounds funny and tricky, yet I think it's the best reason for such inaccuracy.

Yet, as I previously told, the movie is ok for a rainy thursday night. Or even saturday?!?

[JohnT]

I had a wee read over the replies and to be fair everyone makes a decent point or two.

Just my two pence worth

I go bonkers at the telly during court room dramas because as a litigation lawyer I know 99% of the plot is total bullshit with lawyers doing things that you just can't do - full stop/period/end of discussion

Susan - my better half and specialist nursing sister- goes bonkers at the telly during hospital dramas as even the best are tosh.

Both of us reckon that our jobs are so boring that they would make crap tv programs if done true to life

How many guys who fought say its true that war is 99% boredom and 1% action/fear?

I think firstly that probably we all on here all know too much about what the film was supposed to be about putting us into the same position that I and Sue are in with regards to the above tv programs

I think it might have been better if the film makers had just said its a WW2 flyboys film in the same mould as "Where Eagles Dare" and then we could all relax, eat pop corn and laugh at the silly bits. (BTW who did carry all the re-load ammo for Richard Burton and Clint then?) and for the film makers to claim more for it than that does deserve the Order of the Welly Boot.

My six year old enjoyed though - so did Sue and they know almost nothing about WW2 airwar

Edited July 2, 2012 by JohnT

[Panzer Vor!!!]

reload ammo for clint and richard ????? never even thought about that chap just too busy enjoying the film == classic from the opening shots to the end brillant in every way

[593jones]

I realise that, it was just me being sarcastic about 'Discovery' and there usual lack of research.I've watched programs were destroyers have been called 'battleships'. I wonder if any research is actually carried out. It's got to the stage where quantity of programs seems to count more then quality of programs. waiting for the day when a Lancaster gets called a Spitfire, it's bound to happen.

Oops, that's me completely missing the point Just when I thought I could air a little of my limited knowledge as well!

[e8n2]

"Red Tails is a film. The purpose of a film (usually) is to convey a story. Stories sometimes get embellished over time with artistic licence. As long as the main tenets of the story aren't lost, then no-body generally minds. The producers and directors of the film set out to raise awareness of the Tuskagee Airmen, and yes, they probably were considering how best to do that with their balance sheet in mind, but if money-grabbing was their primary concern, they'd just do more Rom-Com stuff with cheaper sets, or a science fiction project with markting spin-offs (toys & video games = £££)

There are hundreds of thousands of people (most importantly, the younger ones) who know more about the Tuskagee airmen than they did a year ago. A block-buster film with exaggerarted effects is always going to get more subscriptions than a book or even a free online database, so that's what they did. Many people have been educated, so mission accomplished. Whether or not the sub-types of aircraft depicted are the right ones, or the Luftwaffe's markings aren't quite right is so irrelevant as to be not worthy of comment. The suggestion that the film is somehow disrespectful to those pioneering men simply because of such minutae is, in itself, a very dodgy statement."

I could have lived with the screwed up CGI aspects of the film a lot more if George Lucas had made sure to take the time and use the names of REAL, ACTUAL, HONEST TO GOD, Tuskegee Airmen for the character names. As I have said before, not one damned character was named for an actual Tuskegee Airmen, and how in the hell do you honor them if you can't even use their real names. Lucas claimed that racism kept him from making this film years ago. What do you call it then when you couldn't even use the names of the real Tuskegee Airmen as characters in your film?

Later,

Dave