Masters of the Air - follow up to Band of Brothers
Discussion
http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-articles/masters-o...
Has apparently started filming. If it’s as good as BoB and The Pacific it will be very good indeed.
I hope it's better than "Memphis Belle".
MB was a bit too cartoonish and condensed for me. However, Band of Brothers is one of the best World War 2 dramas of all time so if this can emulate it, it would be great.
I expect there will be heavy use of CGI in this and, up to now, CGI renditions of World War 2 air combat has been very poor and unrealistic. The fairly recent film "Midway" was some of the best I've seen so far but there were still segments that looked a bit too much like a computer game.
I hope they make an effort to correctly portray the changes to the aircraft and tactics that evolved during the USAAF's campaign over Northern Europe. And I'd like to think that, especially with the capabilities of CGI, we get to see some variety of aircraft, especially on the German side. It would be great to see how they would deal with bomber formations being attacked by Me109G and Ks, Me262s, Me 163s and Focke Wulf 190s of various sorts. They even used cannon equipped Me410s against bombers.
This is a picture taken by a B-17 crewman during an actual attack.
MB was a bit too cartoonish and condensed for me. However, Band of Brothers is one of the best World War 2 dramas of all time so if this can emulate it, it would be great.
I expect there will be heavy use of CGI in this and, up to now, CGI renditions of World War 2 air combat has been very poor and unrealistic. The fairly recent film "Midway" was some of the best I've seen so far but there were still segments that looked a bit too much like a computer game.
I hope they make an effort to correctly portray the changes to the aircraft and tactics that evolved during the USAAF's campaign over Northern Europe. And I'd like to think that, especially with the capabilities of CGI, we get to see some variety of aircraft, especially on the German side. It would be great to see how they would deal with bomber formations being attacked by Me109G and Ks, Me262s, Me 163s and Focke Wulf 190s of various sorts. They even used cannon equipped Me410s against bombers.
This is a picture taken by a B-17 crewman during an actual attack.
Band of Brothers the book is awful, Steven Ambrose clearly had a hard on for the 101 Airborne and this came through in the shonky historical research and hagiographic approach. The tv series was brilliant though, and still stands up well today as a semi-fictionalised recreation of events.
Hopefully this will be just as good.
Hopefully this will be just as good.
The original World War 2 documentary is not too bad - although as we all now know, it was a bit contrived even then.
There's something a bit "casual" about the 1989 movie that annoys me.
I want to see in this new work images of hundreds of bare metal B-17s pulling condensation trails with the curved trails of the "little friends" escorts high above them. It makes for a spectacular scene if they can do it.
So far, Hollywood has not really replicated this but it was so typical of these large raids and needs to be portrayed somehow.
There's something a bit "casual" about the 1989 movie that annoys me.
I want to see in this new work images of hundreds of bare metal B-17s pulling condensation trails with the curved trails of the "little friends" escorts high above them. It makes for a spectacular scene if they can do it.
So far, Hollywood has not really replicated this but it was so typical of these large raids and needs to be portrayed somehow.
Eric Mc said:
I expect there will be heavy use of CGI in this and, up to now, CGI renditions of World War 2 air combat has been very poor and unrealistic. The fairly recent film "Midway" was some of the best I've seen so far but there were still segments that looked a bit too much like a computer game.
That is my immediate concern - CGI action that resembles a computer game and excessive special effects. 'Dunkirk' was crushingly awful.Simpo Two said:
That is my immediate concern - CGI action that resembles a computer game and excessive special effects. 'Dunkirk' was crushingly awful.
Dunkirk is one of the best war films ever made, not least of which because it used a fair amount of practical effects including real ships and planes and models where this was not practical. Obviously this resulted in loads of autistic wittering from people about BF109s with the wrong markings or destroyers with enclosed bridges but it did look more realistic.
Newarch said:
Dunkirk is one of the best war films ever made, not least of which because it used a fair amount of practical effects including real ships and planes and models where this was not practical.
Obviously this resulted in loads of autistic wittering from people about BF109s with the wrong markings or destroyers with enclosed bridges but it did look more realistic.
I was thinking more of the bit where the Spitfire pilot ran out of petrol, then thought - 'oh look there's an enemy aircraft, I'll just climb and shoot it down'. And where the soldiers hid in an old boat with a spy and got shot at. Sorry, it was nonsense. The 1958 version was infinitely better, and without pretty-boy actors.Obviously this resulted in loads of autistic wittering from people about BF109s with the wrong markings or destroyers with enclosed bridges but it did look more realistic.
Simpo Two said:
Ah, the bit where the Spitfire pilot ran out of petrol, then thought - 'oh look there's an enemy aircraft, I'll just climb and shoot it down'. And the bit where the soldiers hid in an old boat with a spy and got shot at. Sorry, it was nonsense. The 1958 version was infinitely better, and without pretty-boy actors.
I don't remember him climbing to destroy the Stuka, I think he shot it down as he descended to land on the beach Wasn't it a French soldier disguised as an British soldier to get evacuated?
seabod91 said:
Will be keeping an eye on this. Band of brothers was amazing. As soon as I saw that picture it reminded me of Memphis belle, another amazing film that I have been trying to find for years ( had it on vhs as a lad ), but to no avail.
Its easy enough to find and watch, its on all the usual streaming platforms to rent for a few quid, its on TCM channel today also, and the dvd is 4.99 to buy on Amazon.Simpo Two said:
That is my immediate concern - CGI action that resembles a computer game and excessive special effects. 'Dunkirk' was crushingly awful.
In fact, Christopher Nolan used hardly any CGI - especially in the aircraft scenes. The problem with "Dunkirk" is that he should have used MORE CGI, especially for the beach scenes and backgrounds.Newarch said:
I quite liked Memphis Belle, it isn't a bad film by any stretch, even allowing for dramatic license.
It was OK, but lacked something as far as I'm concerened.Most Hollywood war films fall short for all sorts of reasons. One of my favourites is Battle of Britain (despite using all the wrong versions of the various aircraft - which they had little choice over). But, like with any war film involving dogfights, it didn't genuinely reflect the altitude at which many of these dog fights took place. Contemporary photographs, and even the odd bit of newsreel, shows Spitfires and 109s drawing curved contrails across the sky. Many of the fights started at well over 20,000 so contrails were common.
The problem for film makers is that it is not really possible to do air to air cinematography at those altitudes. Camera planes need to have open apertures for the cameras to be aimed through - which means the camera planes aren't pressurised. It would not be feasible or cost effective to try and kit out the camera plane crews, especially the camera operators, with full blown WW2 era oxygen systems and heated flying suits (as B-17 and B-24 crew wore).
This is the camera ship that was used in Battle of Britain.
You can see how exposed the camera operators were.
That's why I think proper use of CGI could show dogfights as they really were. It would certainly look spectacular on the big screen - as long as they don't get carried away.
I'm looking forward to it.
The high water mark of this kind of thing is often cited as 'The Battle of Britain' but if that came out now all anyone would do would be to complain that Mk.1 Sptifires didn't have 6 stub exhausts, that most Sptifires in the film were actually Mk.VIII, IX, XVI, XIX, that Buchons are nothing like BF109's and that the Heinkels have the wrong engines.
The attention to detail in modern films is fantastic, yes it's not perfect but too often the drive for perfection compromises the end product. If TBoB was made now it would be so CGI heavy it would detract from the beautiful air to air scenes that used real aircraft flown quite aggressively by people who knew what they were doing.
The ideal world result would be that with real flying late mark ME109's*, FW190's and a ME262 as well as B-17's and B-24's available for close up air to air work the potential should be realised!
BF109 - Bayerische Flugzeugwerke
HE 111 - Heinkel
FW 190 - Focke Wulf
JU 88 - Junkers
Later in the war as production became increasingly de-centralised and the designers became more significant a factor than the original manufacturer the RLM 2 letter prefix often changed to that of the designer rather than the original manufacturer:
ME 109 - Willy Messerschmitt
TA 152 - Kurt Tank, designer of FW190, TA152 was a evolution of the FW 190 D
Additionally as aircraft types developed they often were updates of existing designs rather than all new models, these simply had 100 added:
ME 210 became ME 410.
JU 88 became JU 188 became JU 288
So early 109's are BF 109, G model onwards are more usually referred to as ME 109.
Allied pilots had no idea of this system and BF and ME are interchanged in almost all allied records of the period.
The high water mark of this kind of thing is often cited as 'The Battle of Britain' but if that came out now all anyone would do would be to complain that Mk.1 Sptifires didn't have 6 stub exhausts, that most Sptifires in the film were actually Mk.VIII, IX, XVI, XIX, that Buchons are nothing like BF109's and that the Heinkels have the wrong engines.
The attention to detail in modern films is fantastic, yes it's not perfect but too often the drive for perfection compromises the end product. If TBoB was made now it would be so CGI heavy it would detract from the beautiful air to air scenes that used real aircraft flown quite aggressively by people who knew what they were doing.
The ideal world result would be that with real flying late mark ME109's*, FW190's and a ME262 as well as B-17's and B-24's available for close up air to air work the potential should be realised!
- Nerd point.
BF109 - Bayerische Flugzeugwerke
HE 111 - Heinkel
FW 190 - Focke Wulf
JU 88 - Junkers
Later in the war as production became increasingly de-centralised and the designers became more significant a factor than the original manufacturer the RLM 2 letter prefix often changed to that of the designer rather than the original manufacturer:
ME 109 - Willy Messerschmitt
TA 152 - Kurt Tank, designer of FW190, TA152 was a evolution of the FW 190 D
Additionally as aircraft types developed they often were updates of existing designs rather than all new models, these simply had 100 added:
ME 210 became ME 410.
JU 88 became JU 188 became JU 288
So early 109's are BF 109, G model onwards are more usually referred to as ME 109.
Allied pilots had no idea of this system and BF and ME are interchanged in almost all allied records of the period.
Edited by Stick Legs on Saturday 15th May 11:44
A really irritating example of 'wrong aircraft' is Memphis Belle. The escorting fighters were represented by P51s, late model P51s at that. While the main reason the original Memphis Belle was special was that it survived a complete tour before fighters were available that could escort it deep into enemy territory, and what was significant about the P51 was that it had the range to do just that.
The makers didn't have the excuse of more appropriate aircraft such as P47s or Spitfires not being available, they just didn't use them.
The makers didn't have the excuse of more appropriate aircraft such as P47s or Spitfires not being available, they just didn't use them.
Eric Mc said:
Newarch said:
I quite liked Memphis Belle, it isn't a bad film by any stretch, even allowing for dramatic license.
It was OK, but lacked something as far as I'm concerened.Most Hollywood war films fall short for all sorts of reasons. One of my favourites is Battle of Britain (despite using all the wrong versions of the various aircraft - which they had little choice over). But, like with any war film involving dogfights, it didn't genuinely reflect the altitude at which many of these dog fights took place. Contemporary photographs, and even the odd bit of newsreel, shows Spitfires and 109s drawing curved contrails across the sky. Many of the fights started at well over 20,000 so contrails were common.
The problem for film makers is that it is not really possible to do air to air cinematography at those altitudes. Camera planes need to have open apertures for the cameras to be aimed through - which means the camera planes aren't pressurised. It would not be feasible or cost effective to try and kit out the camera plane crews, especially the camera operators, with full blown WW2 era oxygen systems and heated flying suits (as B-17 and B-24 crew wore).
This is the camera ship that was used in Battle of Britain.
You can see how exposed the camera operators were.
That's why I think proper use of CGI could show dogfights as they really were. It would certainly look spectacular on the big screen - as long as they don't get carried away.
https://cinejet.com/
Newarch said:
Simpo Two said:
That is my immediate concern - CGI action that resembles a computer game and excessive special effects. 'Dunkirk' was crushingly awful.
Dunkirk is one of the best war films ever made It's an atrocious film (assuming you are not talking about the original with John Mills in?)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff