Battle of Britain on Channel Five right now

[leccyflyer]

Don't just stand there - get one up!

[Tony Harrison 2]

Is that the 1960s film? Saw it a very long time ago, and frankly I wouldn't wish to see it again. I suppose computer animation could make a difference, but otherwise it's simply not possible to create a credible WW2 film about air warfare - it wasn't possible in the '60s, as I remember all too well - those BF108s masquerading as 109s... And let's not forget - no, let's forget travesties like "633 Squadron".

rgds Tony

[leccyflyer]

 IMO Battle of Britain is the finest film ever made about the war in the air, the flying scenes have never been surpassed , due to the huge number of aircraft that Hamish McAddie  assembled and choreographed in the air. As it happens there's an excellent article in this month's Flypast, with an interview with  Squadron Leader John Preece about the filming of the aerial scenes in particular. No other flying film comes anywhere close to what was achieved wit Battle of Britain.

 

Those were Buchons masquerading as Messerschmitt Bf109s and a very good job they did of it too -far better than some latter day computer game masquerading as a film. Real aeroplanes will provide a far, far better spectacle than CGI, every time.

[SIMON CRAGG]

Brilliant film, never get tired of watching it.

 

Be good to see "Piece of Cake" re run at some point as well!.

[Tony Harrison 2]

34 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Those were Buchons masquerading as Messerschmitt Bf109s and a very good job they did of it too -far better than some latter day computer game masquerading as a film. Real aeroplanes will provide a far, far better spectacle than CGI, every time.

I'm not sure about that. Prior to the release of "The Lord of the Rings" I was extremely doubtful, as a long-time fan of Tolkien's masterwork; but the CGI worked wonders, extremely impressive and convincing. Things have moved on a lot since "Godzilla". Problem with WW2 films even in the 1960s is/was the shortage of "real planes"! Even at the time, I found the aerial fights unconvincing. And most WW2 dramas suffer from a sort of ponderous style, with big-name actors distracting from the narrative credibility instead of adding to it - "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far" being prime examples. The only WW2 drama I can think of that is credible, very well acted and superbly directed is "Band Of Brothers", IMO a masterpiece. I can think of no air-war movies that are even acceptable, let alone good. WW2 documentaries are a different matter.

rgds Tony

[Don Fry]

It’s a film. Entertainment. Lady has very nice legs.

My father went to his grave mourning his brother, lost in a Sunderland in late 1943.

And later, in the Brinton Arms in Stourport on Severn, a a lad, I used to drink with a bloke, dads age.

He was a pilot, Mosquitos. Did the thick end of two tours of duty, to the Wars end.
He related, he did not have a problem, except, when his navigator, was slow to realize the predicted winds were suboptimal, and they were late over target, 15 minutes, to Germany, and we’re lucky to survive the return, against an alerted air defense system. 
Photograpy is good though.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Don Fry

[Nightflyer]

1 hour ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Brilliant film, never get tired of watching it.

 

Be good to see "Piece of Cake" re run at some point as well!.

Simon Piece of Cake is on You Tube should you want to see it. I saw it a while back. Some of the scenes for the flying was done from a friend of mine's farm on the Downs near Beachy Head.

[Richard Acland]

1 hour ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Brilliant film, never get tired of watching it.

 

Be good to see "Piece of Cake" re run at some point as well!.

"Piece of cake" is available on you tube also another great programme called " Over Here". Not great  video but definitely worth a watch.

[Peter Jenkins]

3 hours ago, Tony Harrison 2 said:

I'm not sure about that. Prior to the release of "The Lord of the Rings" I was extremely doubtful, as a long-time fan of Tolkien's masterwork; but the CGI worked wonders, extremely impressive and convincing. Things have moved on a lot since "Godzilla". Problem with WW2 films even in the 1960s is/was the shortage of "real planes"! Even at the time, I found the aerial fights unconvincing. And most WW2 dramas suffer from a sort of ponderous style, with big-name actors distracting from the narrative credibility instead of adding to it - "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far" being prime examples. The only WW2 drama I can think of that is credible, very well acted and superbly directed is "Band Of Brothers", IMO a masterpiece. I can think of no air-war movies that are even acceptable, let alone good. WW2 documentaries are a different matter.

rgds Tony

Do you have first hand experience of air fighting then?  Unless you know what the tactics are that are being employed it is very difficult to follow an aerial battle.  The firing solution is achieved fleetingly while aircraft twist and turn or just turn as tightly as they can.  That is difficult to depict but I think they did a great job in the film.  Look at who they had advising them as well - people like McHaddie, Bob Tuck etc all BoB pilots.  So, pleased you think you know better than them.

[Robert Cracknell]

All too easy to criticise old films in the light of what can be done today. 20/20 hindsight. A relative of mine was an aerial cameraman on BoB sitting in what would have been the rear turret on a B25. You might think the film is rubbish but he sweated and got air sick filming the scenes which some teenager experienced in CGI could replicate in a few hours. Give the film makers some credit for achieving what they did with the technology of the day. It is still a great story of the days in 1940.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

From the perspective of someone who has never taken part in an aerial battle (except a bout of mock combat with a friend in vintage gliders) I'd imagine the scenes depicted in the BoB and other examples such as Howard Hughes' Hell’s Angels - filmed with genuine WW1 aircraft and pilots and despite the awful acting) are far more realistic than some of the OTT CGI effects that I've endured in some recent films.  I'm sure that nothing shown on a cinema screen could come close to the noise, smells, vibration, G effects, disorientation, fear and spatial effects that must have been involved but the BoB film was a valiant attempt IMO.

[leccyflyer]

Thanks gents. ?

 

I love aeroplanes, always have. It's impossible for me to adequately express how little I care whether or not CGI can produce realistic imagery of elves, goblins and other entirely fictitious creatures, my interest is in how the aeroplanes look in a film and how they are portrayed. IMO CGI does a very much inferior job, compared to the assembly, choreography and filming of what was, at the time, over 100 real aeroplanes. Some of the flying scenes have more than 50 real aeroplanes in simulated battle. That Flypast article tells how in the first takes the Spitfires were not getting anywhere close enough to the Psychadelic Monster B-25 camera ship and subsequently the pilots were instructed to close within a few feet of their target. As Peter said, the film-makers had such luminaries as Robert Stanford Tuck and Adolf Galland as advisors, who both knew a bit about aerial combat.

 

Even the scenes involving models - such as the simulation of the Stuka attack on Ventnor Chain Home Low radar station, ought to hold fascination for aeromodellers -despite the fact that the Stukas are models, rather than real Stukas. It's a credible representation - compare that to the horrible CGI in Pearl Harbor - the real aeroplanes in Tora Tora Tora! did a much better job, even though many of them were barely converted Harvards. Still preferable to CGI sprites turning in their own length and knife-edging between hangars. Save that nonsense for computer games where it belongs.

[Rich Griff]

Don't forget to get your poppy....

[John Lee]

This thread has some details of the models used in the film.

[Cuban8]

15 hours ago, Tony Harrison 2 said:

Is that the 1960s film? Saw it a very long time ago, and frankly I wouldn't wish to see it again. I suppose computer animation could make a difference, but otherwise it's simply not possible to create a credible WW2 film about air warfare - it wasn't possible in the '60s, as I remember all too well - those BF108s masquerading as 109s... And let's not forget - no, let's forget travesties like "633 Squadron".

rgds Tony

I'm genuinely surprised at your negative comments Tony. Yes it's true that 'The Battle of Britain' is looking a bit clonky and wooden in places after 50 years, and the Christopher Plummer/Susannah York sub plot does get on my wick, but I think the balance does tip in its favour of being the most influential film about the Battle of Britain conflict. Not forgetting that without the film, it's very unlikely that the warbird movement in this country would ever have got off the ground, so to speak.  Moreover, I wonder how many of us who saw the film either first time round or later on re-release and on TV had the seeds of that R/C Spit sown or model aircraft in general. I know I spent a fortune on Airfix kits at the time to give me my own opposing air forces and fought the battle in my young mind's eye many times over. So very different now.

If you can get the special edition DVD box set with deleted scenes, crew interviews and the 'how it was made documentary' I think it does give another angle on things. Running the film with the director's commentary is also very enlightening.

As for CGI.....I've not seen a film where CGI is used instead of real aircraft and the result is convincing. They just don't seem to get the correct dynamics of how a real aircraft looks in the air during set pieces other than when a massed formation in the distance is needed.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Cuban8

[Rich Griff]

Is it true that some of the real hienkel bombers used in the film where Spanish air force and Merlin powered ?

 

RAF llanbedr had part of the base in the village, now known as Maes artro.

 

Is the full size mock up static spitfire used in the film still there ?

Edited October 3, 2021 by Rich Griff

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Ah, now come on picking fault with Susannah York ? What's the World coming to ? ?

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Rich Griff said:

Is it true that some of the real hienkel bombers used in the film where Spanish air force and Merlin powered ?

 

RAF llanbedr had part of the base in the village, now known as Maes artro.

 

Is the full size mock up static spitfire used in the film still there ?

Yes, as did the Me 109s which were Buchons.  Both from the Spanish Air Force.  See Wiki for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111

 

[leccyflyer]

2 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

I'm genuinely surprised at your negative comments Tony. Yes it's true that 'The Battle of Britain' is looking a bit clonky and wooden in places after 50 years, and the Christopher Plummer/Susannah York sub plot does get on my wick, but I think the balance does tip in its favour of being the most influential film about the Battle of Britain conflict. Not forgetting that without the film, it's very unlikely that the warbird movement in this country would ever have got off the ground, so to speak.  Moreover, I wonder how many of us who saw the film either first time round or later on re-release and on TV had the seeds of that R/C Spit sown or model aircraft in general. I know I spent a fortune on Airfix kits at the time to give me my own opposing air forces and fought the battle in my young mind's eye many times over. So very different now.

If you can get the special edition DVD box set with deleted scenes, crew interviews and the 'how it was made documentary' I think it does give another angle on things. Running the film with the director's commentary is also very enlightening.

As for CGI.....I've not seen a film where CGI is used instead of real aircraft and the result is convincing. They just don't seem to get the correct dynamics of how a real aircraft looks in the air during set pieces other than when a massed formation in the distance is needed.

Very true. Only the other day, in a discussion about the Durafly Bf109E a fellow aeromodeller said that the scene where the Bf109s strafe the field in the opening sequence, coming in at fencetop height, was the reason that he had got the Durafly Emil.? So the film is still widely loved and influential, even today.

I know that I've watched Battle of Britain hundreds of times - no exaggeration - and every trip that I make to the flying field is accompanied by the superb soundtrack on the car stereo.

[Tony Harrison 2]

12 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Do you have first hand experience of air fighting then?  Unless you know what the tactics are that are being employed it is very difficult to follow an aerial battle.  The firing solution is achieved fleetingly while aircraft twist and turn or just turn as tightly as they can.  That is difficult to depict but I think they did a great job in the film.  Look at who they had advising them as well - people like McHaddie, Bob Tuck etc all BoB pilots.  So, pleased you think you know better than them.

Your criticisms and assertions are curious, and don't seem to bear a clear relation to what I wrote. Is it necessary to have experienced aerial combat before commenting on the credibility of a feature film on the subject? If so, I'd guess that every film reviewer in the world who wrote about "BoB" was unqualified... Similar can be said about anything remotely specialised - interstellar travel, submarines, flower arranging... It's very silly to suggest that I presume to "know better" than such as Stanford Tuck ;I've read Larry Forrester's "Fly For Your Life" along with a great many more WW2 fighter & bomber aircrew memoirs; I've known friends of my (RAF) father who flew combat in WW2; my RAF uncle flew many different types before & after WW2; an old friend locally (died some years ago) flew fighters including air cover on the first North Sea raid against Tirpitz in Norway... So I know enough about the subject to comment intelligently, thanks. I also know a fair amount about photography, still and movie. I've been interested in aircraft & aviation since boyhood. Two years ago I had a flight in a 2-seat Spitfire IXC out of Lee on Solent...

The BoB film did not convince. Guys like Stanford Tuck did not make the movie - they advised. The aerial combat scenes were not credible. I don't think they could have been at the time, and it would still be challenging now. There, I've said it again. feel free to disagree, as others have done - but please don't insult my intelligence.

rgds Tony

[Tony Harrison 2]

2 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

I'm genuinely surprised at your negative comments Tony. Yes it's true that 'The Battle of Britain' is looking a bit clonky and wooden in places after 50 years....

I commented negatively because I didn't think much of the film, and still don't! I was (and remain) disappointed because I'm a lifelong enthusiast for both aviation, and the cinema. So when the two come together, I watch with particular attention. I'm surprised you think the BoB film was that influential, including an effect on warbird preservation; admittedly I don't follow that particular business closely (though I had a flight two years ago in a 2-seat Spit IXC out of Lee On Solent, absolutely terrific) but the film was a long time ago and I'd imagined warbird restoration took off (!) only in the past couple of decades to any great extent.

I love aircraft, and it was chiefly poor eyesight that stopped me from being accepted to fly in the RAF many years ago. I also love the cinema. I didn't like BoB, for reasons I hope I've made clear.

rgds Tony

[ken anderson.]

BOB, when it was shown in Berlin,the audience started booing and throwing stuff at the screen.............."tell me what you need"...."give me a squadron of spitfire's Reich Marshall",,,

 

ken anderson...ne..1...BOB dept.

[J D 8]

Hi Tony, That there are the number of Spitfires, Hurricane's and 109's for us to see in the air and in museums today is very much down to the making of Battle of Britain and other films. Many airframes were brought out of deteriorating 

 obscurity some to fly and others for static use and it was at that time the late 60's and the 70's that the warbird movement gained ground with air displays becoming even more popular and the publication of the then new Aeroplane monthly mag. 

The recent death of Conny Edwards in 2019 who was a pilot for the BoB film has brought a number of  Buchon 109's and a Spitfire on to the restoration scene.  The Spit was his to start, the 109's he had taken home to his ranch in Texas in as payment for his work on the film.  He kept the Spit and a 109 airworthy for many years.  Others were dry stored making the very good candidates for flying restorations today. Cheers John.

[Tony Harrison 2]

5 minutes ago, J D 8 said:

Hi Tony, That there are the number of Spitfires, Hurricane's and 109's for us to see in the air and in museums today is very much down to the making of Battle of Britain and other films. Many airframes were brought out of deteriorating 

 obscurity .... Others were dry stored making the very good candidates for flying restorations today. Cheers John.

Interesting, thanks. A friend of mine awaits with interest the Hurricane 2-seat conversion I believe someone is doing - he'd like a flight in one, especially since his wife's father flew Hurricanes (later  P-47s) in WW2.

rgds Tony

[Rich Griff]

In the 1920's or there abouts a black and white film was made about fighter pilots and squadrons ( Howard Hughes ? ? ) Of the first world war, showing dog fights. Some pilots were killed making that film...

 

I bet older people who experienced the blitz get frightened again when they hear an air raid siren on a film, or bonfire night...

 

Remember to get your poppy...

Edited October 3, 2021 by Rich Griff