-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"Redtails"
- Thread starter dujardin
- Start date
CBI
Well-Known Member
I am going by what I have seen which I think looks really good on the trailers. I was an Executive Producer on a documentary film once which gave a a whole different perspective on film making. Doesn't make me an expert but it adds a bit to the perspective. Even if this film does come up short, its still going to look pretty cool. I remember talking with a film composer about historical films and he told me that the studios more and more are getting away from specific historical events and doing more "based on true events" Not only is it easier but studios are really annoyed at people nitpicking the historical things which happens no matter how accurate a picture is. Expects knocking these films does not help the publicity. If we are not going to support these things as enthusiasts then nobody is going to make these movies. So take your pick, if you would rather see them not made at all, then that's your choice, I don't subscribe to that. Why can't they just make it exactly the way it was is not an easy answer. There are just too many competing interests. Lucas bankrolled this almost all himself and studios still din't want mess with it. $30 million isn't pocket change.
Everyone has the right to an opinion. We do have one (at least one) member who works in the film industry, maybe he can chime in ............
Everyone has the right to an opinion. We do have one (at least one) member who works in the film industry, maybe he can chime in ............
Ian C
New Member
flyboy
Member
No need to go on the offensive CBI - as you say we all have a right to an opinion. And Mr Lucas have a right to make any kind of movie he wishes, since he pays for it. All though I have made my share of commercials and directed 'bout half of them myself - I have never made a "real" movie, so who am I to rock the boat!
... Anyway I can't help wondering why they don't get the movement of the planes right. There are plenty of documentary to look at. Now it only looks like a freaking computer game.
I also know it's a personal - and maybe cultural - thing too, but I find the dialogue far too "heroic and gungho" at least for my liking.
Of course all of this is based on a trailer and not the whole movie - and I even believe I will see it, when it hits our cinemas.
So I'll rest my case until then.
... Anyway I can't help wondering why they don't get the movement of the planes right. There are plenty of documentary to look at. Now it only looks like a freaking computer game.
I also know it's a personal - and maybe cultural - thing too, but I find the dialogue far too "heroic and gungho" at least for my liking.
Of course all of this is based on a trailer and not the whole movie - and I even believe I will see it, when it hits our cinemas.
So I'll rest my case until then.
TankBuster
Active Member
I'm sure Lucas did the best he could with what he had. I think it looks pretty decent and I will see it for sure. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I highly doubt a few bad comments on VLJ will deter anything being done in the movie world 
That being said, I do think it is important to support efforts to tell WW2 aviation stories on the big screen as long as they are done properly and correct. Hopefully that will be the case here! :?:
That being said, I do think it is important to support efforts to tell WW2 aviation stories on the big screen as long as they are done properly and correct. Hopefully that will be the case here! :?:flyboy said:
Soren, do you think we've been conditioned into thinking we 'know' what air-combat looks like, from watching old b&w, scratched, grainy and shaky gun-camera footage? (one of my first impressions of the trailer was that overall, everything seems to look too 'clean') But here I'm really talking about object surfaces, rather than their motion.
However, I cannot conceive that many many hours/weeks/months were not spent analyzing and studying archive film for such a core and vital element as the flying sequences - so I am going to ask you to pinpoint where, in the trailer, you think it looks so wrong, and why
Just watched it again and I have to say those briefing room shots are about as close to realistic as I've seen in film. Of course I wasn't there but......
That red russet A-2 on the left at 1:14 is awesome! At 2:11 the A-2 on the left (saluting, likely in a white reality check scene) looks good. CBI, did you do any back art or just patches. Those squadron patches look killer as well.
That red russet A-2 on the left at 1:14 is awesome! At 2:11 the A-2 on the left (saluting, likely in a white reality check scene) looks good. CBI, did you do any back art or just patches. Those squadron patches look killer as well.
SuinBruin
Well-Known Member
As with all recent LucasFilm releases -- hope for the best, expect the worst. It seems like they nailed the look (those GW A-2s and patches are pitch perfect, and the overall aesthetic is very convincing), but the dialogue sounds very "written" and Hollywood. I'll try to reserve judgment until I see it.
Jason
Active Member
Part of the problem is that while we may yearn for something that is as close as possible to the actual events (technical accuracy), taking that to the nth degree is mutually exclusive to making a film that has a broader general appeal. As much as we might bemoan the lack of such detail, the makers have to give it a broader appeal to ensure enough sales to cover the cost of production and turn a profit. Otherwise we might never get to see such movies appear at all...
For my money, Mr Gooding is the perfect choice as a leading figure.
For my money, Mr Gooding is the perfect choice as a leading figure.
flyboy
Member
rich said:flyboy said:
Soren, do you think we've been conditioned into thinking we 'know' what air-combat looks like, from watching old b&w, scratched, grainy and shaky gun-camera footage? (one of my first impressions of the trailer was that overall, everything seems to look too 'clean') But here I'm really talking about object surfaces, rather than their motion.
However, I cannot conceive that many many hours/weeks/months were not spent analyzing and studying archive film for such a core and vital element as the flying sequences - so I am going to ask you to pinpoint where, in the trailer, you think it looks so wrong, and why
Rich - I have never flown a P 51 or any other WWII plane in combat - but to me the burning B17 in the beginning is just too clean and too staged. And I do not believe for one second that you can turn a P51 that fast - and that narrow - as it is shown at 2:16. Just to mention a few.
Flyboy,
You are likely right on both accounts. But the point is a good one. People really wouldn't want to see what it was "really" like. It wasn't pretty, glamorous, politically correct, or clean. I likely wouldn't like to see it "real" at a theater either.
We live in a world where photo and TV colors must be so saturated that they aren't realistic at all, a rollover car wreck must include and explosion with a 200 ft mushroom cloud, the cocking of a pistol must be louder than the blast when it discharges, the hero clicking his ammo belt must be even louder, people who are shot must fly 60ft backwards, and martial arts jumps last 8 seconds with lots of maneuvers and direction changes in mid air. Oh, and you can reload about any gun while doing a backflip. Add to this that their "reality TV" they love is actually quite staged. People wouldn't know reality if it walked up and slapped them!
Therefore, I conclude that most people are generally too stupid (call it busy, distracted with life, whatever) to identify with, much less recognize, reality.
Long live A-2s!
Dave
You are likely right on both accounts. But the point is a good one. People really wouldn't want to see what it was "really" like. It wasn't pretty, glamorous, politically correct, or clean. I likely wouldn't like to see it "real" at a theater either.
We live in a world where photo and TV colors must be so saturated that they aren't realistic at all, a rollover car wreck must include and explosion with a 200 ft mushroom cloud, the cocking of a pistol must be louder than the blast when it discharges, the hero clicking his ammo belt must be even louder, people who are shot must fly 60ft backwards, and martial arts jumps last 8 seconds with lots of maneuvers and direction changes in mid air. Oh, and you can reload about any gun while doing a backflip. Add to this that their "reality TV" they love is actually quite staged. People wouldn't know reality if it walked up and slapped them!
Therefore, I conclude that most people are generally too stupid (call it busy, distracted with life, whatever) to identify with, much less recognize, reality.
Long live A-2s!
Dave
CBI
Well-Known Member
I have seen threads on other forums (aviation and film related) about Red Tails. There are MANY cynical posters and IMO, many who are nitpicking details. Like one guy who said "Oh well, Hollywood" and proceeded to rip the marking on the Me-262s. Its kind of like going to a concert, hearing one wrong note and then saying the concert was bad. I just hate it this need to pick but that's the way life is.
Nuff said for me ..........
Nuff said for me ..........
[quote="flyboy" the burning B17 in the beginning is just too clean and too staged. [/quote]
I thought this too Soren. But I guess it's probably about as good as it can be, they are after all working to budgets and deadlines and the production timeline is fine tuned to say the least. There's a lot of discussion/disagreement/sarcasm on this thread over just a few minutes of footage - after we've all seen the film, I'm heading for the hills! But the iffy effects of the 1955 Dambusters doesn't mar my enjoyment (or prevent repeat viewings) of the film too much, whereas I don't think I've watched Pearl Harbour more than once......... so it's never just about the effects hopefully
I thought this too Soren. But I guess it's probably about as good as it can be, they are after all working to budgets and deadlines and the production timeline is fine tuned to say the least. There's a lot of discussion/disagreement/sarcasm on this thread over just a few minutes of footage - after we've all seen the film, I'm heading for the hills!
But the iffy effects of the 1955 Dambusters doesn't mar my enjoyment (or prevent repeat viewings) of the film too much, whereas I don't think I've watched Pearl Harbour more than once......... so it's never just about the effects hopefully
CBI
Well-Known Member
HERE IS A NEW, NEW RED TAILS TRAILER - LOOKING EVEN BETTER!
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... pEeOicrkqw
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... pEeOicrkqw
unclegrumpy
Well-Known Member
Wow, that one is better!
Persimmon
Well-Known Member
unclegrumpy said:
Really !!
I though more of the same
I really don't want to knock a film I have not seen but I just found it unrealistic.
Of course its fun to see the Jackets and Patches that were made for the picture.
It just comes across as a Pearl Harbor Mark 2 and whilst I actually will hold my head up and say I actually thought that film was OK one of them was enough.
I even put on 12 O Clock High just to remember what a war film on the USAAF should be.
I appreciate this view will perhaps not be the majority on the forum here but it is my opinion.
Maybe when I see the whole film I will look at it differently.
Maybe !!
