Dambusters Remake?

[phil82]

Well, it's a rumour isn't it? Given that Tom Cruise has made so many disaster[ous], here is a likely scenario for the Dambusters Remake. The RAF will not feature at all!

A major new Hollywood film...

DAM BUSTERS II or WHO YOU GONNA BOMB?

Hollywood's authentic story of the Six-Seventeenth Eagle Bomb Squadron Of the Royal British Air Corps.

THE INTRO....
It is 1941. Hitler has invaded Europe and England alone fights back Aided by a handful of international volunteers, including GI Gibson (Tom Cruise)an American pilot who had already had a key role in winning the Battle Of Britain.
Intelligence has identified that the destruction of a giant dam in central Germany is the key to Allied victory.

THE FIRST RAID....
A raid on the dam by the British Lan-Casters of the 6-17th is ordered, to be led by its war-weary cockney CO (Michael Caine). The crews are filmed boarding the Confederate Air Force's Liberator.
A background of sun-drenched Texan prairie substitutes for Scamppington

Air Force Base and the East Anglian Fens in January.
Colour-enhanced black and white library shots are then used for the Raid - DC-6 engine start, taxiing Halifaxes, Spitfire mass take-off, formation of B24s, Lan-caster at night, bombs dropping from a Mitchell, a B-17 and Focke-Wulf Condor being shot down, the FAA's Boeing 707 crashing in flames.
As with all US aviation films since the invention of "talkies", the aircraft soundtrack consists only of the roar of Pratt & Whitney radial engines, specially recorded during a Harvard mass flypast at the annual Oshkosh air show.
But the raid is a failure, and only GI and his crew survive to try again. Danny De Vito plays the part of the bomb aimer.

THE WEAPON....

After the disastrous first dam raid, it is obvious a new type of weapon Is needed. By chance Barn S. Wallace (Morgan Freeman), the leading US scientist And aviation expert, is in London explaining his invention of the jet engine to an unknown British engineer, Frank V. Tel.
Thinking back to his childhood, Barn remembers skimming rocks across a Lake in native New Hampshire, and quickly comes up with a design for a Bouncing bomb - but it is too large for any British aircraft to carry.

THE AIRCRAFT....

Fortunately, Wallace has brought with him to England the only example of his latest bomber design, the B-29. Cut to the CAF's B-29, painted gloss caramel and vivid green with French roundels, being pulled from its Hangar at Midland, TX, so that GI and his crew can test fly the new bouncing munition over the neighbouring Scotland, and prepare for the raid.

THE RAID....

Shots of Cruise and gang boarding the B-29, plus take-off shots over The American Midwest. Then computer-generated images for outbound flight, the final - and successful - bombing run using the last remaining weapon on board, and the dogfights on the return leg.

Throughout, the standard CGI conventions are used. All WW2 single-seat fighters fly at a minimum Mach 0.9 in +7g manoeuvres, while any multi-engine aeroplane drones along straight and level at 130 kt.

THE COMMAND CENTER....

In a map-encrusted bunker, Barn waits tensely for the results of the raid.
Although the news is of success, he starts to become saddened by the loss of aircrew involved. But, just at that moment, a well-spoken Home Counties WAAF officer (Catherine Zeta Jones) in a starched Virginia McKenna military blouse appears, bearing a tray of Starbucks mugs.
She utters that immortal line - "Cocoa Latte, Sir?" - and all is well.
Information comes in that the flooding from the broken dam has flooded Hitler's bunker (clip fromChaplin as the Great Dictator), thwarting the launch of a new V3 rocket aimed at the Summit Conference being held in buckingham Palace, London, England.
The water also slows the Russian advance, allowing Patton (Harrison
Ford) to capture Berlin and Eastern Germany for the Allies.

THE LANDFALL....

Meanwhile, with three engines blazing and feathered, Gibson and the surviving crew nurse the crippled B-29 back across the Channel.
They just manage to climb over the White Cliffs of Dover to see in the Near distance the welcoming runway lights of their Lincolnshire airfield.
Having studied brain surgery before joining up, the B-29's chirpy Australian assistant cook (Kylie Minogue) saves the lives of injured crew members as the bomber belly-lands onto its home base. It slides to a halt a few Feet from the control tower, where Winston Churchill (Dan Ackroyd) watches proudly.
Also in the scene, in a technology enhancement, is Ronnie Reagan on his horse Trigger.

THE FINALE....

GI stands framed by the blazing wreckage of a redundant Fokker Friendship airliner bought especially for this scene.
Since a wholesome happy ending is mandatory in today's commercial cinema, in a final shot he is joined by "Native-African-American", his loyal dog. Despite the pair of Artificial legs and prosthetic tail fitted after being injured in three major road accidents on the Great North Road during his master's absence, the Labrador bounds joyfully into the sunset with some dame called Vera Lynn singing about the White Cliffs.
***************

[turboNZ]

I think I've seen that movie !!!!

Well done, that was a laugh and a half !!!! ;D

Reminds me of that movie "Midway" (I think) where they used footage of the crashing F-9F Panther on the carrier
and also trying to shoot down a Herk...
(a WW2 movie !!!).

[planeimages]

Political correctness prohibits the dog being given his correct name. Wouldn't do to say "Nigger" these days. Maybe they could call him "Whitey".

I see Mickey Martin died a while ago from the effects of having being hit by a bus.

[planeimages]

The net nannie got me. What I should have said was "Digger" which rhymes with "coloured person". Funny how the nannie let "Whitey" through. I found that very offensive the day I was almost run down by a "coloured person" driving a car in Tornoto, Canada. He called out "Nearly got you whitey."

J.sus wept. You can't even call your dog what you want these days.

I'm going back to read my Biggles books. He called a spade a spade and referred to the enemy in the vernacular of the day.

What gives me the irrits is that you can say the "magic" word on TV and radio and it appears regularly in that bastion of correctness, the Sydney Morning Herald.

My namesake, DBC "Pierre" Finlay, made a fortune with a book which was almost wall-to-wall obscenity. They even gave him an award! I briefly watched a TV interview with DBC and the very proper lady just let the "magic" word roll off her tongue.

[Bruce]

I think you forgot the introduction to the movie:
Adolf Hitler meets Adul Bin Laden (Osamas grandfather) and makes a pact to support the formation of a sleeper terrorist cell in Hamburg, with the express purpose of the destruction of the United States.
This is important - the rules state that any war movie must depict whoever is current enemy of the USA as the bad guys - otherwise no-one would know who the bad guys are.
the plot is also lacking any love interest, personal angst (such as battling drug addiction or coming to terms with being gay) nor does it appear to have any car chases with the mandatory people carrying a sheet of glass, streetside fruit vendors and cars that explode before they hit anything! I think the script needs further work....

[AJ]

:lol: that was gold Phil! I can see you'll be the first in line to see the soon to be made Tom Cruise film about a yank pilot in the Battle Of Britain - NOT!

[phil82]

There was a rumour, about three years ago now, that Hollywood was to make a film about an American, Billy Fiske, who did fly in the Battle of Britain, starring Shortarse Cruise as Billy. The film, if made, is not due our until 2005 [sic].

"Although Billy Fiske may not have shot down as many enemy aircraft as the legendary American aces Gabby Gabreski or George Preddy, or led fighter groups into combat over Germany like Don Blakeslee or Hub Zemke, his contribution to the Allied victory in Europe during World War Two is still noteworthy. After all, he was the first American airman to make the ultimate sacrifice during the Battle of Britain.

His modest contribution to RAF Fighter Command's victory in the summer of 1940 is well-known to those enthusiasts and historians who have researched the history of this pivotal campaign. The story of Fiske's brief life will also soon be familiar to tens of millions of filmgoers the world over following the recent announcement that Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise and legendary director Michael Mann are to collaborate on a film chronicling his exploits. Titled The Few, and based on a manuscript by Alex Kershaw, the motion picture is set for release in 2005, and will star Tom Cruise in the lead role of William Meade Lindsley Fiske III.

Known for his portrayal of fictional all-action heroes in such films as Mission Impossible I/II and Minority Report, Cruise has in Billy Fiske a real-life hero whose exploits would prove a match for even the best Tinseltown scriptwriter. A wealthy banker, dual Olympic gold medallist, Hollywood film producer and fighter pilot all by the age of 29, the handsome Fiske enjoyed a breathtaking lifestyle that is eminently suited to portrayal on the silver screen.

It will be a short film: Fiske was killed !

[Dave Homewood]

Actually I think the story of Billy Fiske's life would be good for a film, but Tom Cruise should not play the part in my opinion. He's about 15 years too old for the war scenes and much too old for including Fiske's youth as a sportsman, etc. There's enough in Fiske's life prewar to make it of some interest, but if it covers his joining the RAF and doing his initial training, advanced training and OTU days, and then into a combat squadron, there's a significant story of RAF trainign Command not usually told in any war film. I do know some proper British historians are involved in the project too, researching Fiske's RAF career for the film's scriptwriter, and they seem confident of the project.

And it's still on the books to be made by the way. Just put back by Cruise's schedule of other crap films he's been making.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0388940/

As for The Dambusters, if Peter Jackson is involved as the rumours and reports suggest, i see no reason why it'll be a Hollywood Americanised piece of trash. Personally I think the film is long overdue a remake, and Jackson could do a fine job. The original is good but so stilted and stuffy, and the special effects no longer cut the mustard.

[steve]

It is a shame that we tend to label all amercan produced films as trash...we all watch them. Peter Jackson would be an excellent director for such a remake ...he is i understand an aviation nut.. Look at the production of the film Titanic..(without jackson).so accurate in so ,many areas with just a liitle fiction! to get the gender balance right for box office sales...etc.. lets hope he uses his talents for historical remakes and leave those hobbits for kindy kids...

[phil82]

I don't think we do label them all as trash Steve, a lot of what Hollywood produces is very good, but not, I would venture, the worst excesses of fims about the Second World War which tend toward the view that America won it alone! That awful U-boat film springs to mind, in which they set out to portray that the US Navy had captured a U-Boat and a Enigma machine with it, and then used the U-boat against the Germans. All utter horse-droppings of course, it was the RN that did it! Then there was Private Ryan, and derisive comments about Monty's troops around Caan; the Brits actually lost more men in Normandy than the Americans, despite the huge difference in numbers taking part, but not according to Spielburg. The chances are that any film out of Hollywood starring Tome Cruise about the Battle of Britain will be an absolute parody of the truth. Even if the character he plays, Fiske, was real, he [Fiske] played a very small part in the scheme of events.

[Dave Homewood]

I don't hold with either argument of these two films that are often discussed in regards to this issue of Hollywood clouding the truth.

For a start, I do not believe that the makers of U-571 ever intended people to believe their film was a docu-drama of a real event. It's an action flick, based loosely on some events but with fictional characters and story - just like The Guns of Navarone, 633 Squadron and most other war films ever made. Even before it was released however the UK tabloids were attacking the film for the issue you say, and so the makers added the account of genuine Enigma captures.

For the record, the first Enigma machine was not captured by the British, it was the Polish underground who smuggled it out of Poland in 1939 at huge risk.

As for Saving Private Ryan, again it's fiction, and openly admitted to by its makers, though based loosely on realistic events and set in one place of one battlefield. It is not set on a British beach/sector, so that's why you don't see them. I have never seen any reference to the filmmakers wishing to wipe out the history of the other Allies. Spielberg is simply not like that.

You have a point about the reference to Monty - this seems to be a trademark of every recent US war film is they have to diss Monty - why, I don't know. He was a far better general than Patton ever was by miles.

It is the films about real events (ie not fiction) that really annoy me when facts are twisted and the truth disappears - Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Windtalkers (worst film EVER), etc that annoy me. Funnily enough it seems the bigger the budget, the worse the truth seems to be twisted - it must be all the endless script rewrites that the fatcats funding a film always demand. It's surely greed and lack of talent on the filmmakers part that cloud the issue. Mr Jackson appears to have both those in control.

Another example of Hollywood lying to the audience, in the film Patton where you see the Yanks being pummelled heavily by German artillery in the desert (I think it was Cassarine Pass?) and his whole army was virtually wiped out - did you know contrary to the film, in reality there were only a handful of German guns (I can't recall if it were 3 or 5) and troops on the German side which wreaked that havoc. Yet the film makes it look like dozens of guns firing on them to make their incompetence look less.

As for historical war films, one of the worst I've ever seen for twisting facts was British - 'The First of the Few'. What a load of propaganda tosh and lies that was. If ever an important story needs telling right, it's that one.

Filmmakers also have a tendency to pre-publicise a historical film project with rhetoric that they are striving to make it as accurate as possible. The makers of Pearl Harbor stated while it was being made that they were making it as accurate as possible and many actors and crew had decided to work for free as it was a tribute to the veterans. Look how that turned out, a disgrace. However, Steven Spielberg is not like that, his ultimate goal in every historical film he's made is 'get it right' - Amistad, Schindlers List, SPR, Band of Brothers, they are all a credit to his work. Hanks is the same, his work as director of From The Earth To The Moon and Band of Brothers was outstanding imho. I am looking forward to the pair's next project, The Pacific.

By the way, some may be interested to hear that a new historical film project is underway in the UK now to make a film from Alex Henshaw's book "Flight of the Mew Gull". I have never read the book nor claim to know much about the story (I assume it's, about his record breaking flight from UK to South Africa and back?), but it is one to watch for.

[phil82]

"For the record, the first Enigma machine was not captured by the British".

I too was well aware of that Dave, but the fact was not germane to the subject, which was the film!

"It is not set on a British beach/sector"

Also true, which makes the gratuitous comments about the performance of the British troops around Caan even less relevent,

Whilst I admire Spielberg as much as anyone, he is no less guilty of attempting the re-write of historic fact than any other Hollywood director.

The Battle of Britain episode in Pearl Harbour where an American in USAAC uniform turns up to join a RAF squadron , in 1940,is pure Barnum and Bailey, but given Americans' general lack of knowledge on anything historical, there are now thousands of people who believe that was the way it happened! I believe film makers can do what they like with the genre, but when they are dealing with historic fact, then they have an obligation to get it right. The fact that they don't is pure ignorance.

If you have ever watched that magnificent US Civil War film "Gettysburg", which was virtually 100 per cent accurate, and even filmed on the actual sites, now a National Park, then you would realise that they don't mess sround with such topics in America, but the rest of the world is fair game.

[Dave Homewood]

"For the record, the first Enigma machine was not captured by the British"

I too was well aware of that Dave, but the fact was not germane to the subject, which was the film!

Fair enough, I just through that in as an aside of interest, not as part of the argument.

Personally I think U-571 is one of the USA's better submarine-based action films. Mind you, nothing can beat Germany's excellent film Das Boot which is much more historically correct than any other in that sub-genre.

"It is not set on a British beach/sector"

Also true, which makes the gratuitous comments about the performance of the British troops around Caan even less relevent,

Very true - I can never fathom why they have to denegrate the history of General Montgomery, who achieved a hell of a lot more than any US General has, ever.

Whilst I admire Spielberg as much as anyone, he is no less guilty of attempting the re-write of historic fact than any other Hollywood director.

Have you examples of this please? (please don't say The Goonies was twisted fact? ;D)

He has, on occassion, allowed his scriptwriter to create a fictional minor character from an amalgam of real people to help the story flow better - but many historical films do this - it's a common technique - so the audience can relate to the point of view of that character easier than if seven bit parts came and went in the film confusing the issue. Example is Morgan Freeman's character in Amistad. It did not twist the history nor wreck the viewer's understanding, etc as it was a lesser character. That's the only thing I can thing of in terms of Spielberg changing fact.

When they do that to the major character it's different. Point in case is Mel Gibson's film The Patriot, who's character was a mix of four different real men, each more villainous than the last in real life, to make their make-believe hero whom they touted as 'real'. Then to make him seem better they twisted history and made the good man Cornwallis look like a sadistic evil nasty man. That is unforgivable film making when they use real names and facts and say it's true.



The Battle of Britain episode in Pearl Harbour where an American in USAAC uniform turns up to join a RAF squadron , in 1940,is pure Barnum and Bailey, but given Americans' general lack of knowledge on anything historical, there are now thousands of people who believe that was the way it happened!

"Hammer Down!!"

Yes, one of the worst pieces of fact-twisting ever. I was amazed the UK warbird community co-operated. I love the way the set designer must have looked out Battle of Britain and Piece of Cake and deduced all RAF stations have a French Chateau at the end of the runway...

I still think someone should be shot for making that film. And sadly US kids will indeed think it's 'fact' because it said it was...

I believe film makers can do what they like with the genre, but when they are dealing with historic fact, then they have an obligation to get it right. The fact that they don't is pure ignorance.

I totally agree with you.

If you have ever watched that magnificent US Civil War film "Gettysburg", which was virtually 100 per cent accurate, and even filmed on the actual sites, now a National Park, then you would realise that they don't mess sround with such topics in America, but the rest of the world is fair game

I have heard that this is very good historically. I have not seen it because US "Civil" War history bores me to tears. Most US history is as twisted as their films though, like Columbus was never the furst man to discover America because
a) he never ever set foot on the American continent, north or south - he was only in the West Indies
b) he never ever knew he wasn't in the Dutch East Indies
c) the Native Americans were clearly there first, centuries before him, as were the Vikings.
Yet they still teach their kids that some wop called Columbus discovered their country and there are plaques all over the country with different dates of him setting foot there! As Penn and Teller say, it's all BULLSHIT.

Don't get me started on the so-called Civil War, which was never a civil war, it was between two nations, the USA and the CSA, each with their own presidents and governments, etc. Again, total misinformation. And the intention of Lincoln to fight with the CSA was never originally to free slaves as everyone thinks, it was purely economical and the slave thing was tagged on well into the war after political pressure on the US government.

So, it's no wonder they can't get foreign history right when they have so much wrong in their school-taught general knowledge of their own lot.

[phil82]

Yes Dave, that's an aspect of the US Civil War, but I have a number of books on it because it was really one of the greatest tragedies in modern history. It divided familes, some of whom ended up on opposite sides through no choice of their own, and the majority of the officers of both sides attended the same Academy, West Point, and most of them knew each other and were friends in fact.

[Dave Homewood]

Sure, I agree with that. Any war is terrible.

[steve]

Ok...Hmmn...you guys are good...excellent discusion that gives you time to see both sides of the topic...Phil82 i chuckled at your remarks over the US getting their own history 100% right however the rest of the world "fair game" well stated!.....The yankies are like that...like the rest of the world doesn't exist except for London and Paris...Their education at high school is to blame....however love them or hate them the Brits are as close to them as we are to Aus.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN & BLESS AMERICA!