Battle of Britain on Channel Five right now

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Tony Harrison 2 said:

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

When in a hole, stop digging ?

[Ron Gray]

Bit harsh Peter, Tony makes some, IMO, very valid points and he is, like we all are, entitled to his opinion. 

[J D 8]

 Rich, The Film was directed by Howard Hughes both on the ground and in the air. He was badly injured [ fractured skull ] flying one of the stunt shots himself.   The famous or infamous for the number pilots killed during the filming  "HELLS ANGELS"

Edited October 3, 2021 by J D 8

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Everyone is entitled an opinion gents, keep it calm and civil please.

[Tony Harrison 2]

2 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

When in a hole, stop digging ?

I'm in no hole, Peter, except perhaps in your imagination. You fail to address my perfectly fair points in a polite manner. I suggest you reconsider.

rgds Tony

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

BoB is a curious mix of very good film making using the available technology and resources, and an absolute clanger in other areas. 

 

The best that can be said is that unlike other war films of the time the producers did not shoehorn in some Americans to please the US money involved, even though with the Eagle squadrons they had an excuse. 

 

The 60s doorbell always makes me chuckle. 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Yes - Hell’s Angels. Shot twice as talkies emerged during filming and re-cast at least one actor because his voice didn’t carry off the right impression. The flying shots were also redone as on viewing them, Hughes realised that the clear California skies didn’t give any impression of speed. They moved several hundred miles to find some weather…shame they couldn’t have found somewhere that looked a bit more like Northern Europe on the ground though. 
 

Has anyone else seen the film?  I had to buy it from the USA to see it as no region 2 versions were on sale anywhere - and I’ve never seen it on TV.  
 

P.S. If anyone is interested, I’ve found a copy on YouTube 
 

While the flying scenes are pretty good - especially when you realise how old it is - the plot and acting certainly don’t hold up to modern scrutiny but it’s worth watching all the same. You may recognise some shots which have been used in modern WW1 documentaries!

 

I’ve just remembered that the making of the film was featured in “The Aviator” (Leonardo diCaprio) - which also featured one of the worst CGI crash scenes I can think of!

 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Martin Harris - Moderator

[David Davis]

"...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...."

 

Oh I don't know, Richard Todd landed by glider on D Day and helped secure the area around Pegasus Bridge. In "The Longest Day" he played the role of Major John Howard who was in charge of the first wave. They actually met on the bridge itself. If anybody knew anything about Pegasus Bridge, it was surely Todd.

 

As for American pilots in the Battle of Britain, I believe that there were only eleven in 1940, Wikipaedia suggests ten. Only two survived the war. The first Eagle Squadron was not operational until February 1941.

[leccyflyer]

Here's an example of the utterly horrible CGI that I was talking about. Personally I'd much rather have the radio controlled Stukas in Battle of Britain and the difference between these computer game graphics and the aerial ballet of real Spitfires, Hurricanes, Buchons and Heinkels in the Battle In The Air scene in BoB is extreme.

 

 

[GrumpyGnome]

Yeah, that's just like a computer game ..... yeuk

[ken anderson.]

no point in comparing the "Film" with the real thing.....its acting and actors and made for the big screen to entertain the audience....and made a long time ago(1960's)..based on facts but sensationalised for the the cinema.

my friends dad was shot down over Germany 1944...ended up in Stalag Luft III...the great escape camp,cooking on one of the stoves above the tunnels. When theY made the film version of the GE.....the survivors were invited to the first showing of the film at London in 1963...when they came out and compared notes they all said ...what a load of tripe/rubbish it was.

 

ken anderson...ne..1...Steve Mc Queen,riding a BSA in the Great Escape film dept.

Edited October 4, 2021 by ken anderson.
crepe grammar dept

[Jon H]

That clip from leccy flyer is actually, not that bad...at least until the wing slap. Admittedly its not that realistic, but its also not redtails bad. 

 

I was watching a video about the midway movie from 2012 (i think it was 2012) and some naval buff was responding to a beard stroker bleeting about how the japanese carrier group ships were all much too close together. He was right, but our naval buff was quick to point out that if they were not depicted like that you could only fit one ship on screen at a time and its similar here with aircraft in close formation shooting at each other. If they are 200 or 300 or 400m apart as they were in reality, they would be like specs in the distance on a screen. Admittedly some of the flying in midway was cgi awful, but some of those defences do stand as you need to make allowances to let the audience actually see the action. 

 

In the case of BoB, it has to have some of the best flying sequences going. Yes the wooden models they blow up in flight look..wooden, but would you rather they blew up a spitfire? And besides that shot where a burning spitfire is diving past the camera, then breaks up and crashes into the beach is probably the most realistic crash i have seen in a film. Beyond some annoying points of the plot the sequences with fighters attacking the heinkel bombers and general dog fights are the most realistic i have seen in a film to this date. As has already been mentioned various fighter pilots, including adolf galland, advised on the film.  Yes the 109's are Spanish HA1112-M1L's (nerd status confirmed) and there are late Mk Griffon spits and CASA Heinkels with Merlins flying around. But they use white T6's pretending to be zero's in every movie depicting the pacific war, and they still look better than most cgi efforts. Also, there were no 109e's left when the film was made, and i think there are only about 2 or 3 flying now. Thats why the polish section in the film was made up of 3 Hurricanes and 3 109's pretending to be Hurricanes. There were only 3 Hurricanes available. 

 

So anyway, im not sure what all the hate is about. 

 

 

[David Davis]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Here's an example of the utterly horrible CGI that I was talking about. Personally I'd much rather have the radio controlled Stukas in Battle of Britain and the difference between these computer game graphics and the aerial ballet of real Spitfires, Hurricanes, Buchons and Heinkels in the Battle In The Air scene in BoB is extreme.

 

 

 

Cannon-armed Spitfires in 1940?

[RottenRow]

2 minutes ago, David Davis said:

Cannon-armed Spitfires in 1940?

They were ahead of their time clearly…

Like the equipment that the farmers used to make the perfectly straight lines in the fields beneath the battle ??.

A couple of years ago I saw that ‘The Battle of the Bulge’ was on TV. Unfortunately the likes of Henry Fonda and Telly Savalas didn’t appear, rather it was an awful low-budget remake. An amusing observation was that they included CGI snow; the same snowflakes consistently fell straight downwards despite the trees clearly showing high winds. And none settled on the ground.

As they only seemed to have a handful of vehicles at their disposal, I was interested to find out how the producers were going to handle the tank battle at the end of the original version. The film ended well short of that however! Perhaps the maker’s computer battery went flat at that point…

Brian.

[Colin Carpenter]

Yes ! Designated the B wing to differentiate between canon and Browning wings. Not successful at that early stage due to blockages ! Soon sorted though. Colin 

[Cuban8]

21 hours ago, Tony Harrison 2 said:

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

I understand that you didn't care much for BoB, that's fine and very much I suppose a matter of taste and preference. I have my problems with films that others go mad about...........the new Dunkirk is IMHO, an appalling load of rubbish that I actually paid to go and see at the flicks - it wound me up so much it put me in a bad mood for days afterwards according to my other half. While we're at it 'Battle of Britain Model Squadron' I just couldn't stand. We all have our bouquets and brickbats to give out, I guess.

I think that the 1968 film was responsible for the early beginnings of the current warbird movement because it focussed public attention on the destruction or neglect of airfields and aircraft that at the time were merely regarded as little more than junk that had had its day. Oddly enough, the vandalism of the film producers blowing up one of Duxford's original WW1 hangers for the sake of it, was possibly the best thing that could have happened and had people questioning the wisdom of such actions in the 1970s that were also happening at many historic WW1 and 2 sites around the country. Go to an airshow either in the 70s, 80s and onwards and what music do we usually find even now often accompanying the Spits and Hurricanes? Ron Goodwin's battle of Britain theme! Never fails to get my blood up.

How things will remain in the coming years is very much a thing to be concerned about. The cost of running a large airshow and knock-on hike in ticket prices is creating a downward spiral of attendance, especially as fewer younger people are even aware of what went on in 1940, so a day out watching old aeroplanes doesn't have the resonance that it had for many of us of an older generation. Nothing unusual in that, same thing in many other areas.

On a more positive note, a number of excellent TV programmes and docu-dramas have come along about aviation history thanks to independent producers working for channels like History and others.

 

[Tony Harrison 2]

5 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

I have my problems with films that others go mad about...........the new Dunkirk is IMHO, an appalling load of rubbish that I actually paid to go and see....

 

I think that the 1968 film was responsible for the early beginnings of the current warbird movement because it focussed public attention on the destruction or neglect of airfields and aircraft that at the time were merely regarded as little more than junk that had had its day.....

 

what music do we usually find even now often accompanying the Spits and Hurricanes? Ron Goodwin's battle of Britain theme! Never fails to get my blood up.

 

fewer younger people are even aware of what went on in 1940, so a day out watching old aeroplanes doesn't have the resonance that it had for many of us of an older generation

 

 

1. I have avoided seeing "Dunkirk" precisely because I doubt very strongly that I could enjoy it, distracted (as would be inevitable I'm sure) by infelicities of acting, characterisation, anachronisms etc. My son is badgering me to watch "1917" (both my grandfathers fought in that one) but I'm reluctant to do so for similar reasons.

2. You echo others in saying BoB was influential in a useful way. I genuinely don't know, but I'll take your word for it.

3. Music! Can't recall the BoB soundtrack, though Ron Goodwin was an honourable creator of musical scores. But in general I hate the music that accompanies war movies! It's pompous, blaring, cod martial, clichéd, derivative, unoriginal, and (IMO) deeply annoying.

4. Yes. Years ago I was for a time a lecturer in a FE college, teaching mostly 16-19 year olds, and their historical knowledge was frighteningly stunted. Just about everything before the time of their birth (or even more recently) was contiguous with the Stone Age, just a great lump of "The Past" when everything was rubbish and old fashioned, and nothing interesting happened. The kids were very shaky about WW2, confusing it regularly with WW1 or even the Battle of Hastings

rgds Tony

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I found 1917 deeply thought provoking and felt a real sense of being there. I’m no cinematic expert so I can’t comment on its production values etc. but I would recommend you try watching it. 

[Jon H]

I have seen Dunkirk and 1917...neither did it for me. Dunkirk had a clever premise to it but the execution was poor in my view. It just became a jumble and while real aircraft were used for some of it, hollywood nonsense also had its way. 

 

1917, again, one part of the story in particular just annoyed me as it was stupid for stupid's sake. I think it was supposed to 'move' the audience in some sort of emotional way but for me i was just annoyed as it was stupid. It was a shame as some of it was excellently shot, but as usual the plot let the side down. 

 

As for music, BoB would be nothing without its soundtrack! 

 

On teaching history, schools shy away from teaching living history and tend to teach really old stuff. Also, to be honest, i remember learning about the stone age back in the dim and distant days of y2 so i was what, 7 years old? Anyway i remember learning about it, but dont actually remember learning anything. Same with the romans when i was about 8 or 9. Its only much more recently that i have developed a real appreciation of that sort of ancient history as its only now that i am truly able to understand the relevance of what it is i am seeing. A 7 year old sees a really old boat or something but has little context to understand it. 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Jon - Laser Engines

[J D 8]

       It was 19 squadron that flew cannon armed Spitfire's, Most of their action took place over Dunkirk and many more enemy would have fallen to their guns had the worked as they should, for the rest of the battle they went back to 303 armed aircraft while the problem was sorted.

  For me the 1958 Dunkirk with Sir John Mills is the best, some very moving moments like when Mills [ Corporal Binns ] trying to lead his men to safety has to leave one behind, and another when the Gun line commander sends them to safety, He knowing the he and his men would soon be Stuka fodder.

  One thing that makes films of the era work I recon is that many of the cast will have served in the military.

[Eric Robson]

I can't remember the name of the film, probably because it was absolute rubbish it was in the 1980's . they had Buchon's painted in English markings and Spitfires in German markings. I quite enjoy watching the BoB film and accept most of the inaccuracies as it is impossible to recreate the past as it was. The model aeroplanes blowing up it the air for me was the most unrealistic part along with the the replicas being destroyed on the ground.     

[Cuban8]

1917!

My daughter (who's 36 and liked it very much) advised me to watch this on Netflix and I genuinely sat down with an open mind and was prepared to enjoy it.

Let me be generous.......it was OK to fill a bit of time to spare, nothing to write home about and was probably a bit too long. The single seemingly continuously shot storyline actually made me a bit nauseous until I got used to it - a bit of a gimmick TBH.

GGI. A lot of it looks like one of those 'platform' games, very unrealistic. The burning crashed German 'plane never seemed to be consumed over the several minutes it was in shot. The best bit - the CGI rat!.

Worth a look if you can though, but give me All quiet on the western front (both the classic and newer version) and even Blackadder goes forth.

 

The TV mini-series Band of Brothers is excellent and is based on Stephen Ambrose's book. SA was not particularly Anglophile in his view (see his contributions on the 'World at War') and this does creep in from time to time with his work, but it is what it is and does at least give us the chance to engage with the characters, especially the real chaps that were interviewed at the end of the series. Ironically the lead character actor was a Brit along with one or two others and I think most of it was shot in the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Cuban8

[David Davis]

I'm quite a Great War buff through having been close to my grandfather who served in the Royal Engineers installing telephones in the trenches which the Germans delighted in blowing up! Mind you we did the same to theirs.

 

I quite enjoyed 1917. They seem to have got many of the details right but the basic plot was fanciful. Going across German territory in April 1917 to get a message through would have involved getting through both the British and the German wire and crossing three lines of German trenches without being spotted, then doing it all again in reverse!

 

They'd have been better off getting my grandfather to repair the phone lines and phoning up the batallion involved!

[leccyflyer]

This is the Yakfire, which was used for shooting some of the cockpit scenes for Dunkirk.

 

[leccyflyer]

I agree that the Red Tails CGI is even worse than the example that I posted earlier from The German. The trailer is particularly bad.

 

 

 

How anyone could prefer these bad computer games to the majesty of the beautiful real aeroplanes assembled en masse, to great effect, in Battle of Britain is frankly puzzling.