Warbird Information Exchange

For what it’s worth, George Lucas contacted us about participating in making the film in the 2006 or 2007 time frame. We were obviously a long ways from having the Red Tail ready to fly at that point. Given that, I have to believe Lucas understands the importance of the B/C models as it relates to the Airmen’s history. If you’re hung up on that detail, you’re missing the point of the movie altogether.
As for the content of the film, when Mr. Lucas met with us at Oshkosh in 2011 to review our program and its content, he told us we’re doing something he can’t do with his movie; bring live history to the people. His intentions for this film are to bring attention to the masses of who the Tuskegee Airmen are. He felt the best way to do that was to create a two hour action packed film with an all black cast. While respecting historical fact he did not set out to create a historical record or documentary of the Airmen’s history. Placing less value on the absolute historical accuracy of such things as exacting aircraft and flight envelope details was intentional in most cases. In other words he wants to introduce people to the Tuskegee Airmen story, get them excited to learn more about them and hopefully they will take the initiative to seek out outlets like the Red Tail Squadron and other museums that offer more historical content for deeper understanding.
I have not seen the movie or even the trailer yet so I cannot comment on it. The few short clips I’ve seen seem to be in line with what Mr. Lucas told us at Oshkosh. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this approach and in fact, I think it’s very effective. Except for a minority of dedicated zealots, history can be quite dry and factual which can be off-putting. Give it some sizzle and it gets a lot more intriguing…for some it will be the spark that draws them all the way in. That’s the goal…that’s the end game.

John

It matters to historians and researchers. It mattered enough to Mr. William Holton, the Tuskegee Airmen national historian and the AFHRA at Maxwell AFB. I haven't seen anyone here discrediting any of these heros struggles and sacrifices.

I agree that it does matter. The point I was trying to make is that no matter if bombers were lost or not, the Tuskegee Airmen deserve our appreciation and respect.

_________________
A&P/I.A., A.A.S./Aviation Maintenance technology
Warbird salvage/recovery
One day I'll get that P-40!

Absolutely! I had the priviledge to meet and speak with a couple of them at Selfridge ANG back in the early 2000's.

Caught the commercial last night. Me-262 with a yellow nose

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

John, I immensely respect what you and the Red Tails team do, and am deeply impressed with the Mustang's rebirth- saw her at Langley this past year, and it was absolutely stunning, as was the display.

Knowing how much effort you guys put into it to get it back in the air, I have to wonder about your use of the term "dedicated zealots"... it almost sounds pejorative in the context of your comments, but I think it's a fair bet you include yourself in that very small group, as are most of us here. At any rate, Lucas's comments sound as though the genesis of the movie had a noble goal- which was my understanding as well, based on conversations I had with a friend who was trying to guide them through the historical research, having authored a book on the Airmen. This only compounds the tragedy of the resulting screenplay, which takes a truly special and awe-inspiring story and completely twists the context to make the heroes look larger than they actually were, which is completely unnecessary. I'm not talking about the silly CGI overspeeding or 7500 8th AF B-17s in the bomber formation scenes, which are just dumb technical oversights; I'm talking about portraying the Air Corps effort in the Med as being hopelessly lost until the Tuskegee Airmen showed up to save the day. That's not only a disservice to the tens of thousands of other Allied airmen who served honorably in the MTO, it also minimizes the true accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen... when a curious moviegoer looks into their history and discovers that no, they didn't actually save the whole air war, and yes, their escorted formations did in fact lose aircraft to enemy action (through no fault of the men of the 99th!), how is that movie doing anything but creating a fiction that reality cannot hope to measure up to?

And I would also disagree very, VERY strongly with Lucas effectively abdicating any responsibility to tell the story accurately, leaving it up the moviegoer to go find out the "real" story- why not tell the story truthfully from the get-go? God knows it's certainly impressive enough without having to invent crap to fluff it up... were his scriptwriters so devoid of imagination that they couldn't find a way to turn their inspirational true story into a movie script? The sad fact is that 98% of the moviegoing public is going to see this film and leave the theater thinking they know all they need to know about the Tuskegee Airmen, which would be incorrect.

All that said, I'm going to see it when it opens along with most of my other aviation history nut friends- because if we are to have ANY hope of seeing a historical aviation movie told correctly, this one will have to do well at the box office, and it's our responsibility to help make that happen.

Respectfully,

Lynn Ritger - a fellow dedicated aviation history zealot

I agree with both sides here in part. I think that if you are going to tell the story, you should try to stick as close as you can to the true story. That being said, to make it a movie you are going to have to add some drama here and there or stream line a few things for the telling of the story. There are very few movies that can do it without that. Apollo 13 was a pretty good example I feel of a movie that didn't add a ton of BS to what really happened. Band of Brothers as well, but you had a whole series to tell the story, not an hour and a half.
The thing is that we all love to bash a film like Pearl harbor, but let's take a look at what happened when they made that movie. Is it true in every detail with out added drama? No way. But Theatres had big premiers where they filled the theatres with WWII veterans free of charge. Folks celebrated the WWII veterans service. That's it. people learned that there was such a thing as the Doolittle Raid. These people might have never known about it. I have several friends that are non-aviation folks, that after that movie started reading books about the real Pearl harbor and Doolittle Raid. Why because they saw it on the movie, and wanted to learn more.
I'll give you an example. They made the movie "We Are Marshall" it is about the 1970 Marshall University plane crash that killed the entire football team and many of the towns citizens. I was born in 1980. I had never heard of this event until the movie was made. Since seeing the movie I did some studying on the crash, the team, and the town. Everything is not like it was told in the movie. Two years ago my wife and I actually went down to Marshall and spent the night. We toured the memorials, and the school. I took some photos that ended up getting published in an article. While we were there, at the memorial a gentlemen asked me where I was from. When I told him, he asked why we were in this small town. if we had known any of the victims. I said no, just researching it, and paying respect to the fallen at the site. Turns out he lives there and his brother was on the plane. Upon leaving he thanked me for coming all that way just to see their little memorial. I would have never known about this had it not been for that movie.

Movie makers should strive to be right on with the story and the depiction of those involved. But remember, you can't learn what is fact, fiction, or movie BS about an event, If you never learned that the event even happened.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

[/quote]
John, I immensely respect what you and the Red Tails team do, and am deeply impressed with the Mustang's rebirth- saw her at Langley this past year, and it was absolutely stunning, as was the display.

Knowing how much effort you guys put into it to get it back in the air, I have to wonder about your use of the term "dedicated zealots"... it almost sounds pejorative in the context of your comments, but I think it's a fair bet you include yourself in that very small group, as are most of us here. At any rate, Lucas's comments sound as though the genesis of the movie had a noble goal- which was my understanding as well, based on conversations I had with a friend who was trying to guide them through the historical research, having authored a book on the Airmen. This only compounds the tragedy of the resulting screenplay, which takes a truly special and awe-inspiring story and completely twists the context to make the heroes look larger than they actually were, which is completely unnecessary. I'm not talking about the silly CGI overspeeding or 7500 8th AF B-17s in the bomber formation scenes, which are just dumb technical oversights; I'm talking about portraying the Air Corps effort in the Med as being hopelessly lost until the Tuskegee Airmen showed up to save the day. That's not only a disservice to the tens of thousands of other Allied airmen who served honorably in the MTO, it also minimizes the true accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen... when a curious moviegoer looks into their history and discovers that no, they didn't actually save the whole air war, and yes, their escorted formations did in fact lose aircraft to enemy action (through no fault of the men of the 99th!), how is that movie doing anything but creating a fiction that reality cannot hope to measure up to?

And I would also disagree very, VERY strongly with Lucas effectively abdicating any responsibility to tell the story accurately, leaving it up the moviegoer to go find out the "real" story- why not tell the story truthfully from the get-go? God knows it's certainly impressive enough without having to invent crap to fluff it up... were his scriptwriters so devoid of imagination that they couldn't find a way to turn their inspirational true story into a movie script? The sad fact is that 98% of the moviegoing public is going to see this film and leave the theater thinking they know all they need to know about the Tuskegee Airmen, which would be incorrect.

All that said, I'm going to see it when it opens along with most of my other aviation history nut friends- because if we are to have ANY hope of seeing a historical aviation movie told correctly, this one will have to do well at the box office, and it's our responsibility to help make that happen.

Respectfully,

Lynn Ritger - a fellow dedicated aviation history zealot[/quote]

Lynn,

On behalf of the Red Tail Squadron thank you for the kind words...

As for the rest....wow, dressed down yet again by the WIX trust.

I consider myself one of the zealots but probably not quite in the same vein as most. I enjoy the technical part of the aircraft and how things were built back then more than the absolute battle and sortie histories. I do have more than a thumbnail outline of the war and major battles but not a historian’s perspective like many here. As I age I am finding more time and interest in that part of the picture.

As I said before, I have not seen the movie and cannot speak to its content. My comment's above, as you suggest, never said all responsibility of telling an accurate story should be dismissed in order to make a movie...please re-read my comments.

I am not George Lucas and am by no means attempting to speak on his behalf. I was not asked by him or anybody on his staff prior to, during, or after the movies production regarding its content, thankfully so, as I would have been relative cipher unless they wanted to know technical aspects of the Mustang which would not make great movie content. I merely thought by paraphrasing comments he gave to us last summer regarding his insight on the intent of the movie, might lend to the conversation and give some background into his intent.

At that, I truly have no further interest in contributing to this board.

Regards,
John

John, sure hate to see you go. From what I can tell, Lynn wasn't dressing you down at all, but rather commenting on Hollywood's lack of dedication to accurate story telling in general. Regardless, best of luck with the Red Tails team and everything you guys are doing.

Zack

_________________
Curator - EAA Aviation Museum, Oshkosh, WI
"Let No Story Go Untold!"
http://www.timelessvoices.org

John, I sincerely apologize if you feel my comments on the forthcoming movie were in any way aimed at you or the Red Tails team... that's absolutely not the case at all. I tried to be clear that my issue was with how Lucasfilm handled the scriptwriting and production, which you and the team were completely uninvolved with. It appears I failed in trying to achieve that clarity, and again I apologize for not making that clear enough.

And I reiterate I have the utmost respect for what you guys do, and the pride you have in your work is evident in the immaculate condition of the aircraft and the outstandingly precise display you put on.

Respectfully,

Lynn

I will definitely go see the movie, but it doesn't mean I condone the profane use of CGI. I still do not understand how a cheap $50 flight simulator on my computer looks and acts more realistic than what these multi-million dollar CGI productions come up with. I swear these computer guys have never seen an airplane fly with their own eyes, they just animate how they 'think' they move.

Or at the very least have one real appropriately painted Mustang in the foreground and then CGI in the rest.

But, at least the story is being told and will get folks interested in the real history of the squadron.

I saw the preview on TV last night.
Some rally bad CGI...did you see where the Mustang climbed up, hung on its prop and fell back down like a Pitts doing an areobatic routine? Somehow I don't think Mustangs could or would have done that...(any Mustang pilots out there can ceratinly prove me wrong).
Aslo, attacking that large of warship? It looked more like a battleship rather than a German/Italian destroyer or cruiser they would have likely encountered in the med.


I'll probably wait until it comes on cable rather than spending $10 bucks to see it at the theater.
But the same way I defended Pearl Harbor , I can't be against any film that brings the wartime exploits of our veterans (and warbirds themselves) to a new audience.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

So you´ve already seen it?

John B I'm with you. I'm surprised at the positive comments on here. The CGI looks totally phony to me and is an instant turn off. With the amount of recent razorback recreations and restorations around I'm surprised they couldn't gather any up but I'm sure there's a good reason. It's a shame there seems to be no choice other than CGI at this point- with me it's so bad they might has well have done a cartoon. Fake.

How about Richard Candelaria from this episode of Dogfights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg1GbJP0 ... re=related

Looks remarkably like an Extra 300 flying! And is that a 109G that late in the war with an all yellow nose? That can't be. I'm sure the WIX brain trust said that was impossible. The Mustang pilot who was there must be wrong.

I'll reserve judgement until seeing the movie in person, and not base it on a 2 minute trailer specifically designed to wow people using footage that may or may not be in the final film.