Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

[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?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

While you wait for this, console yourselves with this:

http://www.dunkirkmovie.com/

Before the latest Star Wars movie, I saw something like a 12 minute trailer in the theatre, not this parsimonious 2:30 nonsense. Can your Google-fu unearth that one again? I'll be impressed.

[Neilster]

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

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

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]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The St. Nazaire raid would make for a great war film. I'm surprised it hasn't already been made

No Americans in it It could have been made in the 50s, 60s or the early 70s as a British production but since then, and up until very recently, the financial reality of the movie business has been that unless it appealed to American audiences, there wouldn't be the budget to make such a film with decent special effects.

CGI has radically reduced the costs of doing believable special effects, and the international market is a bigger proportion of a film's revenue, so this situation appears to be changing. Good.

Also, when done correctly, CGI is indistinguishable from reality. You see great CGI all the time; it's just that you don't recognise it because it's seamless. Humans are still very difficult to do without the plunge into the "uncanny valley" but machines, action and explosions are all fantastic now.

I know a bit about this stuff as I have a Computing degree, did Computer Graphics in 3rd year and keep up with the state of the art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

Well that's not strictly true - what about the central character of the film - USS Buchanan? [:)]

[Icier]

There are plenty of original news item footage along with official war footages still around of the air battles over England/Europe, surely you can cobble together decent CGI scenes
using them as a template. [&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Neilster



No Americans in it.

Yes, that was my take on it also. That's the unfortunate reality with this sort of war film.

Due to the absence of Americans being present in the actual raid perhaps American actors could play the German characters. [:D]

The lack of historical Americans has never stopped Hollywood from putting them in a film. [:D]

warspite1

True [;)]

But in all seriousness, it's something we have to accept. No point bleating about it. Money talks and all that. If you need the film to be made with US money and/or you need it to be a hit in the US (to make a profit) then an American star helps/is crucial. It's relatively easy with BoB because there is always 'Eagle Squadron' with 7-11 pilots (in addition to the official 7, it is believed that there may have been 4 others that were posing as Canadians). This means you can add Rafe McCauley and his boyfriend without being too ahistorical.

Depending on the situation and how they are portrayed I think its a worthwhile trade-off i.e. would you rather have no film or a film with an American? For me that is a no brainer (provided they are not depicted as single-handedly winning the battle) - especially when there were Americans in the actual battle (and they deserve acknowledgement same as anyone else). And anyway, it works both ways, American films with a bad guy have to have an English actor to be the baddie [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster

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.

[Neilster]

I'd be happy to buy it. Where can I do that in San Antonio, Texas mate?

https://itunes.apple.com/au/movie/kokod ... mpt=uo%3D4

Cheers, Neilster

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

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

"Kokoda" was on Korean cable a couple of years ago. It was obviously pretty low budget. I stumbled on it about halfway through. The Japanese were depicted as faceless supermen (i.e. they were walking vegetation and you actually couldn't see their faces--they might have been played by Maoris for all I know as they all seemed big). It was like the horrible M. Night Shyamalan flick "The Village" set in the steaming jungles of New Guinea.

Cheers,
CC

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps




Yes, that was my take on it also. That's the unfortunate reality with this sort of war film.

Due to the absence of Americans being present in the actual raid perhaps American actors could play the German characters. [:D]

The lack of historical Americans has never stopped Hollywood from putting them in a film. [:D]

warspite1

True [;)]

But in all seriousness, it's something we have to accept. No point bleating about it. Money talks and all that. If you need the film to be made with US money and/or you need it to be a hit in the US (to make a profit) then an American star helps/is crucial. It's relatively easy with BoB because there is always 'Eagle Squadron' with 7-11 pilots (in addition to the official 7, it is believed that there may have been 4 others that were posing as Canadians). This means you can add Rafe McCauley and his boyfriend without being too ahistorical.

Depending on the situation and how they are portrayed I think its a worthwhile trade-off i.e. would you rather have no film or a film with an American? For me that is a no brainer (provided they are not depicted as single-handedly winning the battle) - especially when there were Americans in the actual battle (and they deserve acknowledgement same as anyone else). And anyway, it works both ways, American films with a bad guy have to have an English actor to be the baddie [;)]

Even the great "633 Squadron," a Brit flick from 1964, had an American (Cliff Robertson) as the squadron commander, no less. American participation in movies made good box office sense at the time.

Cheers,
CC

[Neilster]

"Kokoda" was on Korean cable a couple of years ago. It was obviously pretty low budget. I stumbled on it about halfway through. The Japanese were depicted as faceless supermen (i.e. they were walking vegetation and you actually couldn't see their faces--they might have been played by Maoris for all I know as they all seemed big). It was like the horrible M. Night Shyamalan flick "The Village" set in the steaming jungles of New Guinea.

It generally gets good reviews...

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kokoda/

Cheers, Neilster

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch



The lack of historical Americans has never stopped Hollywood from putting them in a film. [:D]

warspite1

True [;)]

But in all seriousness, it's something we have to accept. No point bleating about it. Money talks and all that. If you need the film to be made with US money and/or you need it to be a hit in the US (to make a profit) then an American star helps/is crucial. It's relatively easy with BoB because there is always 'Eagle Squadron' with 7-11 pilots (in addition to the official 7, it is believed that there may have been 4 others that were posing as Canadians). This means you can add Rafe McCauley and his boyfriend without being too ahistorical.

Depending on the situation and how they are portrayed I think its a worthwhile trade-off i.e. would you rather have no film or a film with an American? For me that is a no brainer (provided they are not depicted as single-handedly winning the battle) - especially when there were Americans in the actual battle (and they deserve acknowledgement same as anyone else). And anyway, it works both ways, American films with a bad guy have to have an English actor to be the baddie [;)]

Even the great "633 Squadron," a Brit flick from 1964, had an American (Cliff Robertson) as the squadron commander, no less. American participation in movies made good box office sense at the time.

Cheers,
CC

warspite1

Yes, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I suspect the film wasn't that great in hindsight (haven't seen it in years), but as a kid I loved it - and the sexy looking Mosquito in particular! Shame the lead was an American, but if the alternative was no film then better to have the film.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Mobius
While there is a running Tiger I he or someone should do a Michael Wittmann movie.

What is the potential market for a movie about an SS dude who wastes Allied soldiers? Not big.
Cheers, Neilster

Not much, unless the Asian market gets into some kind of dress up like SS dudes. And Wittmann didn't waste any Americans.

But, there's not much of a potential world market for a British centric film with no Americans either. Plus America wasn't even in the war at that time. Not that millennials even know who was on who's side in WWII. Plus the setting isn't current day New York City so that makes it a foreign film.[:D]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cpa8RMtrGI

My advice to Mr. Scott, make an Expanse movie.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
My advice to Mr. Scott, make an Expanse movie.

Hear hear. It's an excellent series that needs a movie for those that are unwilling to invest the 20+ hours to read all of the books or check out the SyFy series.

The problem with applying the "Mr. Scott big budget movie" script approach to The Expanse is that it's already very well done with very high production values. So it's not in need of as much spit and polish as some other series.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The St. Nazaire raid would make for a great war film. I'm surprised it hasn't already been made

No Americans in it It could have been made in the 50s, 60s or the early 70s as a British production but since then, and up until very recently, the financial reality of the movie business has been that unless it appealed to American audiences, there wouldn't be the budget to make such a film with decent special effects.

CGI has radically reduced the costs of doing believable special effects, and the international market is a bigger proportion of a film's revenue, so this situation appears to be changing. Good.

Also, when done correctly, CGI is indistinguishable from reality. You see great CGI all the time; it's just that you don't recognise it because it's seamless. Humans are still very difficult to do without the plunge into the "uncanny valley" but machines, action and explosions are all fantastic now.

I know a bit about this stuff as I have a Computing degree, did Computer Graphics in 3rd year and keep up with the state of the art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

Well that's not strictly true - what about the central character of the film - USS Buchanan? [:)]

[:D]

Bloody well right! Without the American contribution, you'd have no BOOM!

[Neilster]

But, there's not much of a potential world market for a British centric film with no Americans either

Well, most of the Commonwealth would be interested. 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. Battle of Britain day is quite a big deal here in Australia, not the least because Australian pilots were involved and it's seen to encompass the entire air war in Europe, which also involved many Aussies. The same goes for New Zealand and I'm sure Canada etc.

Also, the international film market is now more important than the U.S. market. Hence the dearth of movies that have Chinese baddies. That appalling Red Dawn remake had to be completely rewritten and all the CGI changed to (ludicrously) insert North Korea as the conquerors of North America, for fear of alienating potential Chinese cinema goers. They and the billion or so Indians (also part of the Empire then) aren't going to care if it involves Americans or not. They just want to see a good movie with plenty of action.

Cheers, Neilster

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
And anyway, it works both ways, American films with a bad guy have to have an English actor to be the baddie [;)]

You're right. In Patton, the quintessential baddie *is* played by a British actor. This guy was a real pain in the arse.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060988/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t18

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
And anyway, it works both ways, American films with a bad guy have to have an English actor to be the baddie [;)]

You're right. In Patton, the quintessential baddie *is* played by a British actor. This guy was a real pain in the arse.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060988/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t18

warspite1

Yes but he was so good at it [:)] In fact too good - unusually for Hollywood the 'baddie' wins the war [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

But, there's not much of a potential world market for a British centric film with no Americans either

Well, most of the Commonwealth would be interested. 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. Battle of Britain day is quite a big deal here in Australia, not the least because Australian pilots were involved and it's seen to encompass the entire air war in Europe, which also involved many Aussies. The same goes for New Zealand and I'm sure Canada etc.

Also, the international film market is now more important than the U.S. market. Hence the dearth of movies that have Chinese baddies. That appalling Red Dawn remake had to be completely rewritten and all the CGI changed to (ludicrously) insert North Korea as the conquerors of North America, for fear of alienating potential Chinese cinema goers. They and the billion or so Indians (also part of the Empire then) aren't going to care if it involves Americans or not. They just want to see a good movie with plenty of action.

Cheers, Neilster

The Indians have had a very active film industry for many many years. They produce several times more films every year than Hollywood does. They are quite capable of determining domestic demand for most of their films and do so quite well. They may or may not value or attend a foreign-made film that depicts their historical involvement.

The Chinese market is-as you say-more receptive of international films-provided they show China and Chinese in a favorable light at all times. Showing the Japanese as ultimate baddies is a bonus. It somewhat limits the application of history to their film market. After all, the Chinese people are like any other people with their frailties and foibles. And don't even get me started on the Chinese Communist Party...

Such limitations require that film marketers either 'whitewash' films to market in China or focus on films that do not attempt to realistically purport to depict history involving Chinese. Unfortunately, Hollywood-in search of the almighty buck-has chosen the former approach.

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.