Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

[HunterICX]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

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]

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]

I have to say I loved "Kingdom of Heaven".

Chuck

[Chickenboy]

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]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

Ayup.

[Orm]

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

warspite1

Excellent - so long as its situated in Elstree* and the official language is English* I think that will work fine.

* And I'm not even biased....

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

warspite1

Excellent - so long as its situated Elstree* and the official language is English* I think that will work fine.

* And I'm not even biased....

I think it will never be a reality because of the different countries do not want to invest money unless it is located in their own country. [:(]

Personally, I think English should be the working language. The location is a different matter, Placing it in England might cause difficulty after... well you know what I mean. But I do not think this should stop British participation if it were even to become a reality. Although placing it in England might be realistic even after the event when the rule changes are known.

And it should not have the current dumb policy they have when the make European movies and series. Then they need to include actors from every country involved in the funding...

Anyway. We could never agree on such a thing. Sad.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Personally, I think English should be the working language. The location is a different matter, Placing it in England might cause difficulty after... well you know what I mean.

You guys are exagerating. Brexit. Do not argue about it but what's wrong with the word? It's kafkaesque.

I can't see why we need an European cinema. It's a supra-state. And it's states that produce culture. To be honest, I don't want to see a film with a Pole, Romanian, Irish, Croat, Portuguese etc etc. Unless it's "How I destroyed my liver during my Erasmus Studies and other debaucheries".

I want to see good films, they can be as exotic as the Indonesians and Iranians, I don't care as long as they have a story to tell. Subtitles, obviously, give me the real thing.

An EU cinema is just artificial. Let every country produce their culture (in their OWN language). Eventually, help (aka money). And the EU is already doing that.

You'll find out that dominant powers tend to produce culture which they export: the rest of the world happily imports this. It always worked this way. US cinema, Japanese animation for the kids in the 80s and 90s. Or German philosophy, British political economy and French literature in the past.

At this point, I can't see the artificial EU producing an EU culture. Because this culture does not exist in the first place. But indeed, the film I mentioned above (Erasmus and debaucheries) could be made. The EU version of the US Porky's [:D] Not much more.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Orm
Personally, I think English should be the working language. The location is a different matter, Placing it in England might cause difficulty after... well you know what I mean.

You guys are exagerating. Brexit. Do not argue about it but what's wrong with the word? It's kafkaesque.

I can't see why we need an European cinema. It's a supra-state. And it's states that produce culture. To be honest, I don't want to see a film with a Pole, Romanian, Irish, Croat, Portuguese etc etc. Unless it's "How I destroyed my liver during my Erasmus Studies and other debaucheries".

I want to see good films, they can be as exotic as the Indonesians and Iranians, I don't care as long as they have a story to tell. Subtitles, obviously, give me the real thing.

An EU cinema is just artificial. Let every country produce their culture (in their OWN language). Eventually, help (aka money). And the EU is already doing that.

You'll find out that dominant powers tend to produce culture which they export: the rest of the world happily imports this. It always worked this way. US cinema, Japanese animation for the kids in the 80s and 90s. Or German philosophy, British political economy and French literature in the past.

At this point, I can't see the artificial EU producing an EU culture. Because this culture does not exist in the first place. But indeed, the film I mentioned above (Erasmus and debaucheries) could be made. The EU version of the US Porky's [:D] Not much more.

Porky's? Feh. That's SOooooo 1980s. Now it's all about American Pie VII and its related spin offs. [8|]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

You guys will never agree amongst yourselves, so why not let the Americans do it for you, per usual. [:'(].

Make your movies in the states. We'll do it in our (pidgin) "English" in sunny locales with some really good production values and actors. There's this place...it's called "Hollywood"...that can do a fair job on it for you.

Or, for those budget Romanian films, try the subcontinent "Bollywood". [:D]

Please send the relevant EU subsidies forthwith. [8D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

You guys will never agree amongst yourselves, so why not let the Americans do it for you, per usual. [:'(].

Make your movies in the states. We'll do it in our (pidgin) "English" in sunny locales with some really good production values and actors. There's this place...it's called "Hollywood"...that can do a fair job on it for you.

Or, for those budget Romanian films, try the subcontinent "Bollywood". [:D]

Please send the relevant EU subsidies forthwith. [8D]

You have a very good point. And I wish it could work. But, alas, I have no confidence that US will begin producing quality films without a focus on US, or heroes from US.

Do not get me wrong, please. I do love the quality films, and series, from US. And some of lower quality as well. But it would be nice, from time to time, to see the stories told that the US movie industry rejects because they think that the interest for it in US is to low.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if Europe could agree on creating one major film producing centre.

You guys will never agree amongst yourselves, so why not let the Americans do it for you, per usual. [:'(].

Make your movies in the states. We'll do it in our (pidgin) "English" in sunny locales with some really good production values and actors. There's this place...it's called "Hollywood"...that can do a fair job on it for you.

Or, for those budget Romanian films, try the subcontinent "Bollywood". [:D]

Please send the relevant EU subsidies forthwith. [8D]

You have a very good point. And I wish it could work. But, alas, I have no confidence that US will begin producing quality films without a focus on US, or heroes from US.

Do not get me wrong, please. I do love the quality films, and series, from US. And some of lower quality as well. But it would be nice, from time to time, to see the stories told that the US movie industry rejects because they think that the interest for it in US is to low.

Agree. Which is why we have the status quo that we have today. Sigh...

On a related note, have you started watching The Expanse or read the books? It's a very good series. [8D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


On a related note, have you started watching The Expanse or read the books? It's a very good series. [8D]

I watched season one of The Expanse and eagerly await season two to be released on Swedish Netflix.

I bought the three first books of the series and I just begun on the first book. And so far it seems like a great read. But, alas, my reading has grinded to a halt. I have been to tired to read lately. I've gone from reading 50+ books in a year to maybe 5 to 10. Sad. [:(]