RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 1:35:03 PM)
quote: Which brings me back to the "Why don't we have Hollywood blockbusters with X nationality (non-American) focus?" To which I respond as Warspite1 did: Go then. Do it. Get it done. You've got the means. Have at it. My guess is the very small market of Australia, New Zealand and Canada limits their options for independent self-focused "Hollywood-style" films. What's that? 70-75 million people total. There's insufficient market power there. And then you lot would have to answer the same questions that Hollywood has for years: "What's the export market like?" Sure, you duped us with Yahoo Serious and Crocodile Dundee a few years back (don't think I've forgotten either mate), but do Australian films (particularly Australian-focused war films) have any exportability? If not, you're unlikely to recoup the massive budget required to export it. I don't understand what you're getting at with this. I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. A Dunkirk movie is being made and apparently a Battle of Britain one (although, as Warspite has mentioned, I bet there are some Americans in that one) too. I didn't say anything about making an Australian movie. Cheers, Neilster

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 2:49:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Sorry, their backing from "Mother Russia" and intrinsic 'patriotic' (read: Soviet now Russian propaganda) twist on things from the Great Patriotic War are too much for me to stomach. I agree. At least two recent Russian war movies could be described as er... very Putinesque. I mean, picture His Excellency comrade Vlad riding the bear. No shirt obviously. They seem parodies to me, just like the US cheap war movies from the 80s. Except they are not parodies [:D] The spartan old Soviet realism (I'm talking about cinema) was far better IMO. Call me weird, but as non British person I am more interested in the RAF night Bombing campaign. Less spectacular and glamourous perhaps, but I was very surprised when I learned the really huge losses à la U-Boot losses. A tough long fight. As they said above, I hope Scott (79, now that's optimism) makes it.

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 3:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. I will be interested to see how this fares at the global box office ex-Britannia. I wish it nothing but the best, but I truly don't know the global market for a British-centric war movie that focuses explicitly on only British (well, the Germans and French are in it too I guess [;)]) issues of historical importance. Personally, I am awaiting with bated breath. However, the forum regulars here are very much not your average cinema goers. I've seen a couple trailer reviews of Dunkirk by 'average joes' that had me shaking my head at the ignorance of your average person. In between quietly weeping for the species, I wondered whether our interest in this topic means anything in terms of box office returns. We shall see...

warspite1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 3:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Sorry, their backing from "Mother Russia" and intrinsic 'patriotic' (read: Soviet now Russian propaganda) twist on things from the Great Patriotic War are too much for me to stomach. Call me weird, but as non British person I am more interested in the RAF night Bombing campaign. Less spectacular and glamourous perhaps, but I was very surprised when I learned the really huge losses à la U-Boot losses. A tough long fight. warspite1 Not quite U-boat levels thank goodness (44% vs 75%) - but bad enough

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 3:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Neilster and other Ozzies/Kiwis: 4-5 years ago, an Australian production company did an Australian-centric movie on the fighting over the Owen Stanleys and the Kakoda trail (track to you lot). I think it was just "Kakoda". Been trying to find that bloody film on the interwebs for some time without success. You seen it? What did you think? Know where I can sneak a peek? Kokoda was made in 2006. I haven't seen it but apparently it's quite good. It focuses on small unit actions and the Japanese are almost never seen, emphasising the claustrophobic nature of jungle combat. I can't help you with the other stuff. Of course you could always support our small and struggling film industry by actually buying it [;)] Cheers, Neilster I'd be happy to buy it. Where can I do that in San Antonio, Texas mate? warspite1 Amazon sell it. Actually, they don't. There is a Dutch export DVD that is available called the "Kokoda: 39th Battalion", that is seemingly the same movie, albeit with Dutch options amongst those for subtitles. Being as it's a Dutch import ([&:]), it's extra special expensive at $27-28. Or I can do the online streaming version for only $14.95. Amidst these costly options, it turns out the movie didn't receive really good reviews. I amend my previous comments. I am no longer 'happy to buy it'. [:D]

Mobius -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 7:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: Which brings me back to the "Why don't we have Hollywood blockbusters with X nationality (non-American) focus?" To which I respond as Warspite1 did: Go then. Do it. Get it done. You've got the means. Have at it. My guess is the very small market of Australia, New Zealand and Canada limits their options for independent self-focused "Hollywood-style" films. What's that? 70-75 million people total. There's insufficient market power there. And then you lot would have to answer the same questions that Hollywood has for years: "What's the export market like?" Sure, you duped us with Yahoo Serious and Crocodile Dundee a few years back (don't think I've forgotten either mate), but do Australian films (particularly Australian-focused war films) have any exportability? If not, you're unlikely to recoup the massive budget required to export it. I don't understand what you're getting at with this. I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. A Dunkirk movie is being made and apparently a Battle of Britain one (although, as Warspite has mentioned, I bet there are some Americans in that one) too. I didn't say anything about making an Australian movie. Cheers, Neilster Man, they had War Horse, be thankful of that.

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/5/2017 11:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. I will be interested to see how this fares at the global box office ex-Britannia. I wish it nothing but the best, but I truly don't know the global market for a British-centric war movie that focuses explicitly on only British (well, the Germans and French are in it too I guess [;)]) issues of historical importance. Personally, I am awaiting with bated breath. However, the forum regulars here are very much not your average cinema goers. I've seen a couple trailer reviews of Dunkirk by 'average joes' that had me shaking my head at the ignorance of your average person. In between quietly weeping for the species, I wondered whether our interest in this topic means anything in terms of box office returns. We shall see... Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway. I remember my older brother talking to a French girl who said, "The British were just jealous of the French Empire". Said Brother, "Exsqueeze me? Ever heard of the British Empire?" Apparently she hadn't [&:] As for the Philistines who make up most movie audiences, I agree, but there is hope that if the movies are excellent enough and word of mouth is good, people will turn up. Most who do will learn something. I remember during the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan overhearing someone say, "I didn't know they had machine guns in WW2!" [8\|] Cheers, Neilster

Mobius -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 12:31:19 AM)
Largest in land mass or population?

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 1:43:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius Largest in land mass or population? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24% of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories". Also... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires Cheers, Neilster

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway. Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously. Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films.

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 3:22:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway. Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously. Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films. Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian. According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films Cheers, Neilster

AndyG1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 12:19:10 PM)
Real flying, only love story is the plane:) https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 1:02:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AndyG1 Real flying, only love story is the plane:) https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w It's a classic bit of footage [8D] Cheers, Neilster

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway. Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously. Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films. Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian. According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films Cheers, Neilster Not to put too fine a point on it, but your list includes a majority of films that were decidedly non-British in origin. Sure, there may have been sound editing or some green screen contributions from a special effects studio in the UK, but that doesn't make a British film, except by the loosest definitions. Per the Wiki: This article fully lists all films, including short films that have a release date in that year and which were at least partly made by the United Kingdom. Take "The Imitation Game" for example. A quintessential piece about Bletchley Park codebreakers. Produced by...a FRENCH company (StudioCanal). Directed by a Norwegian, written by an American. The film's Oscar for Best Original Score? By a FRENCHMAN. International distribution rights largely held by Weinstein Brothers distribution (American) and Warner Brothers (American). True, Cumberbatch, Kinghtly and Goode are English headline actors. But, other than being shot partially in the UK, I'm not seeing much of a UK focus here. About this movie about Bletchley bleedin' Park. In general, the UK does not punch above its weight regarding international film production. Yes, the BBC have made or produced or co-produced some fine films. But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate. Even "Dunkirk" was written and directed by an American-Englishman (reverse emphasis mine [:'(]), shot on site in France, the Netherlands, United States and the UK with a musical score by a German and distribution by an American company. It's a co-production by the United States, France and the UK. So, this most British of experiences during WWII has to be some multinational conglomerate in order to get international buzz and production value.

Mobius -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:08:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian. According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)] Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history. quote: Guardians of the Galaxy? Is the raccoon British?

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway. Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously. Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films. Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian. According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films Cheers, Neilster Not to put too fine a point on it, but your list includes a majority of films that were decidedly non-British in origin. Sure, there may have been sound editing or some green screen contributions from a special effects studio in the UK, but that doesn't make a British film, except by the loosest definitions. Per the Wiki: This article fully lists all films, including short films that have a release date in that year and which were at least partly made by the United Kingdom. Take "The Imitation Game" for example. A quintessential piece about Bletchley Park codebreakers. Produced by...a FRENCH company (StudioCanal). Directed by a Norwegian, written by an American. The film's Oscar for Best Original Score? By a FRENCHMAN. International distribution rights largely held by Weinstein Brothers distribution (American) and Warner Brothers (American). True, Cumberbatch, Kinghtly and Goode are English headline actors. But, other than being shot partially in the UK, I'm not seeing much of a UK focus here. About this movie about Bletchley bleedin' Park. In general, the UK does not punch above its weight regarding international film production. Yes, the BBC have made or produced or co-produced some fine films. But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate. Even "Dunkirk" was written and directed by an American-Englishman (reverse emphasis mine [:'(]), shot on site in France, the Netherlands, United States and the UK with a musical score by a German and distribution by an American company. It's a co-production by the United States, France and the UK. So, this most British of experiences during WWII has to be some multinational conglomerate in order to get international buzz and production value. You asked me about British films and what I produced was from a list of British films in Wikipedia. Take it up with them. All I said was, "Culturally, countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have a close affinity with Britain and this is most obvious with respect to military history" and that there are "lingering cultural ties". These statements are true and your assertion that, "But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate" is simply a straw man. I didn't say anything about "world leading film production". This debate is stupid and I don't have time for it any more. Cheers, Neilster

Neilster -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian. According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)] Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history. quote: Guardians of the Galaxy? Is the raccoon British? Sorry...you're giving me directives? If you don't like those films being considered British by Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia. I don't care. Cheers, Neilster

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 2:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history. I agree Mobius. The more I reviewed the Wiki entry provided, the more I realize that films were included as "British" for only the thinnest of reasons. By the same logic, all of the films listed could be identified as American films. But one gets what one gets when one uses Wikipedia as a primary source. I was actually impressed with how little British film makers produce of their own accord or as majority in-house production. It's a bit of a tangent (but only a bit), but what major British film makers are there? Other than the odd BBC movie, I can't think of any. Makes it difficult to tout your nation's rightful historical heritage (or market same abroad) when you're beholden to another country's film studios to get things done, idnit?

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 3:18:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories". I have seen this twice lately (I think Warspite said it). That sentence was hijacked by the British. It was coined by Spanish king Philip II in the 1500s to describe his empire, the first global empire. The Portuguese had obviously started the whole thing, but their approach was a Venitian approach: get to India => grab some key points in between (outposts). It was a merchant approach. Whilst the Spaniards were about exploring, conquering and swallowing huge chunks of land.

warspite1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 3:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history. Makes it difficult to tout your nation's rightful historical heritage (or market same abroad) when you're beholden to another country's film studios to get things done, idnit? warspite1 Well of course, but thems the facts of life as mentioned earlier. But it's disappointing that this comes down to another country based argument, not least because life is more complicated than that. Frankly, speaking for the UK, our film/theatre people are mostly of a certain political persuasion and frankly I would be very dubious of their version of any historical episode of ours as a general rule. As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians.

HunterICX -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 3:55:30 PM)
Not really looking forward to it with Ridley Scott behind the wheel. I like his classics Alien, Blade Runner and gladiator has a soft spot but post Gladiator his films for me really missed their mark. Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heavens, Prometheus etc to me are very forgetable and I don't stick like his earlier work which I have now problem watching again if they appear on the telly. Also comparing it to the old Battle of Britain movie which will happen a lot right now and certainly will when the movie is out is no surprise. While older movies with the same topic has a lot of historical errors like using the wrong equipment for example is made up imo by more memorable scenes, lines and characters then the modern remake. For example I can remember a lot of scenes from the Longest Day, find myself quoting their lines and know any character by face then compared to saving Private Ryan in which I only remember the opening scene with one of the best D-Day landings put to film and the rest is pretty vague except for that German who said 'F--- Hitler'.[:D] I will probably grab it when I see it on the rental line up but am not going to build up any expectations.

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 4:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus The Portuguese had obviously started the whole thing Uhh...no. The Portuguese were comparative novices at the whole empire thing. Perhaps they were amongst the first Europeans with a concept of hegemonic expansion towards India, but they were hardly the first wannabe power to consider inclusion of the subcontinent in their 'empire dreams'. The Indians themselves beat them to the punch by about about 1600 years!

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 4:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus The Portuguese had obviously started the whole thing Uhh...no. The Portuguese were comparative novices at the whole empire thing. Perhaps they were amongst the first Europeans with a concept of hegemonic expansion towards India, but they were hardly the first wannabe power to consider inclusion of the subcontinent in their 'empire dreams'. The Indians themselves beat them to the punch by about about 1600 years! Hmm... Yes. It was not about conquering India (read the source of spices) or China (silk). The Ottomans were starting to be truly hostile, closing the lucrative land and sea route that enriched above all the Venitians. An alternative route needed to be found, and the Portuguese were the first pioneers. The Spaniards tried the same via the west and oh, mega surprise, the Americas are found. But the Lusitanians started the whole thing, giving birth to the Age of Discoveries, colonies and the modern world we know. Novices? Well, yes. There's always a first step.

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 4:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians. Aye. 'Tis true. I would argue the same about our historical heritage being wrapped up in the trappings of our nations's film industry as well. Although we tend to have less 'state-sponsored' or official media than other countries, that does make us more beholden for historical heritage to private entities. They usually don't have the heritage thing as a primary rationale for their work, unfortunately. So the truth about the movie Dunkirk is that it will be made by a consortium of multinational companies with a minority stake controlled by anything British. The fact that it is being internationally marketed (and produced and distributed) makes it likely that some important aspects will be glossed over or redone-perhaps moreso than a film with more 'direct' national control. All in the name of sales and marketability. Those in this thread stating that they have cause for optimism because of the subject matter or about the British historical importance are casting their lot where they have no reason to do so. Expressions of "it's about time they looked at this underserved area of our history" or expressions of national pride about the subject matter approached are misplaced, if they are felt. This movie will be produced and distributed by a multinational group. Its distribution and determinants of success or failure will be based upon profitablity. I would hazard a guess that any Battle of Britain remake will be delayed / cancelled if Dunkirk is the dog's breakfast. Just because that's the way these sorts of conglomerates work. They'll bang on that formula until it's no good anymore.

cpdeyoung -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 4:33:30 PM)
I have to say I loved "Kingdom of Heaven". Chuck

Chickenboy -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 4:40:31 PM)
I hadn't realized until recently that Pearl Harbor's love interest-the oh so lovely Kate Beckinsale-was English. That makes the movie a British production by the previous Wikipedia's logic. [:D]

warspite1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 5:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians. Aye. 'Tis true. I would argue the same about our historical heritage being wrapped up in the trappings of our nations's film industry as well. Although we tend to have less 'state-sponsored' or official media than other countries, that does make us more beholden for historical heritage to private entities. They usually don't have the heritage thing as a primary rationale for their work, unfortunately. So the truth about the movie Dunkirk is that it will be made by a consortium of multinational companies with a minority stake controlled by anything British. The fact that it is being internationally marketed (and produced and distributed) makes it likely that some important aspects will be glossed over or redone-perhaps moreso than a film with more 'direct' national control. All in the name of sales and marketability. Those in this thread stating that they have cause for optimism because of the subject matter or about the British historical importance are casting their lot where they have no reason to do so. Expressions of "it's about time they looked at this underserved area of our history" or expressions of national pride about the subject matter approached are misplaced, if they are felt. This movie will be produced and distributed by a multinational group. Its distribution and determinants of success or failure will be based upon profitablity. I would hazard a guess that any Battle of Britain remake will be delayed / cancelled if Dunkirk is the dog's breakfast. Just because that's the way these sorts of conglomerates work. They'll bang on that formula until it's no good anymore. warspite1 Sure that is likely. I mean making a profit is of course important - and in the small world we live in now, bashing this or that national group is never straightforward - especially when the event was so close in recent history. But, despite the all too predictable evidence to the contrary on these forums for example, not everyone is blinkered to the point that their country can never have done wrong or made a mistake or whatever. Some people shock horror actually have an interest in other periods of time, other peoples/countries stories and, for example, British money is used to finance a film about Gandhi - a man who did much to promote the end of British rule in India. So on that score you could have an entirely British funded, produced, directed and acted film, but the money comes from a source that wants to show the British pilots as cowardly, useless upper-class chinless wonders, who only won because of [Hitler's meddling/German bad luck/the weather] choose to suit one's own bias. Or you could have a foreign funded film about the same subject that tries to show the battle as it was. As said, life is not always black and white.

warspite1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 5:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I hadn't realized until recently that Pearl Harbor's love interest-the oh so lovely Kate Beckinsale-was English. warspite1 Yep - the only thing remotely good about that bilge was English [:D][;)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 7:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians. But that had already been done: Tora! Tora! Tora!. Why do it again? Clearly, they were seeking a different path to a blockbuster.

warspite1 -> RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie (4/6/2017 7:53:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians. But that had already been done: Tora! Tora! Tora!. Why do it again? Clearly, they were seeking a different path to a blockbuster. warspite1 Well why re-make any classic? In theory, better visuals, CGI etc would mean an enhanced version of the original. But sure, in this case its a different path and that is fine for the makers of that dross and their audience (whoever that was). But that was not the point I was making. CB said, not unreasonably, that if a country does not make films, it is not in control of the stories of its historical past getting out there. The counter to that is that even when a country does make its own films, the films it makes are not necessarily what 'normal [:)]' people who want to see the word spread would want produced.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5