Peter Jackson to remake Dambusters... it's finally TRUE!!!

[DaveM2]

'Him' being from WHERE??

Dave

Oz!

You remember Dave, that little island just off your coast.

(the one that still has an Air Force)

Good holiday, btw?

Oh..the 'West Island' Holiday was good except for the dose of flu I picked up at the end. Went to the Thai AFM so will post some pics soon.

Dave

[Firebird]

It'll be rubbish.

Only the 'dam attack' scene's could be any better than the original. In every other respect it can't be better than the original, as it will be impossible to recreate the period atmosphere that the original had, being filmed only 8-9 years after the event.
The original had actors that were all around during the war, in Todd's case actually serving, and speaking the language of the period (not today speak) unlimited access to original equipment, including 4 x flying Lancasters plus numerous visually similar Lincolns for background. And not to mention it being filmed using orginal locations, pretty much unchanged from when the event took place, especially the Scampton stuff.

Filming predominately in NZ, with the current crop of actors and using CGI won't make this a better film.

Instead, what would be good, is, if someone did some great CGI, in black and white and spliced it into the original film to replace the originals old fashioned model filmed scenes, retaining the rest of the originals 'live' scenes.......now that would be worth seeing.....

[DaveM2]

[quote="Firebird"]It'll be rubbish.

quote]

I give PJ a call and tell him not to bother then eh, as I guess no one will go see it based on your informed opinion

[TimAPNY]

I'll toss away $9 x2 to go see it. And I'm sure I'll enjoy it also, I'll have to dig up the original to watch also.

Tim

[Firebird]

It'll be rubbish.

quote]

I give PJ a call and tell him not to bother then eh, as I guess no one will go see it based on your informed opinion

If you want.

People will do what they want.

And yes it is an informed opinion, based on having some past involvement in WW2 filming productions and having to deal the 'luvvies' and generally clueless production teams in similar examples I mentioned.....

But, hey experience counts for nothing on these forums, we all know that.

[L2Driver]

Has this report been confirmed? Seems a few months ago a similar article was posted and a short while later official denials were made by Mr. Jackson's representatives.

I'd very much to see a remake but there doesn't seem to be much buzz outside of this one article.

[ww2John]

...only 1 article??

How about today's variety.com...

2. WWII ACTIONER HAS U 'DAM' EXCITED
Jackson to produce through WingNut shingle

Universal and StudioCanal have launched development of "Dambusters,"
a WWII actioner produced by Peter Jackson, Jan Blenkin and Carolynne Cunningham through Jackson's WingNut Films shingle. Longtime Jackson associate Christian Rivers will make his directing debut.

[Russ Matthews]

And CNN:

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- "Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson will remake "The Dam Busters," a classic British war film about a Royal Air Force mission to cripple the German steel industry, Universal Pictures said on Thursday...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

[DaveM2]

quote]

If you want.

People will do what they want.

And yes it is an informed opinion, based on having some past involvement in WW2 filming productions and having to deal the 'luvvies' and generally clueless production teams in similar examples I mentioned.....

But, hey experience counts for nothing on these forums, we all know that.[/quote]

Perhaps you can let us know which movies you were involved with, Peter and his clueless production team can then watch them and learn from your expertise...

[CH2Tdriver]

[quote="Airdales"]About 85-90% of "Flyboys" flying is CGI. When "Flyboys" comes out, see it and then watch "The Great Waldo Pepper" again to see how people and planes should look in real daylight.

I agree about the lighting issue but CGI airplanes have come a long way, and the people who work on them are model makers in their own right as they craft them.

My biggest problem with CGI is the impossible camera angles. In your mind you KNOW its fake b/c there would be no way that you film a real airplane coming straight at the camera etc... Also most of the movements are not as you would see a real airplane on film, as CGI concentrates on extreme close ups and the action is way too fast.

My comments to those who create these CGI flying sequences would be to watch and study footage of real airplanes, then match your work to what you see on film. I want to be wow'ed and say "Now that looks real!"

I was impressed with the XF11 sequence in Aviator, to me that was very convincing as it used a combo of models (excellent job) CGI and full scale mock up.

As far as Dambusters goes, I know in the original there were scenes where they were practicing in daylight. I sincerely hope a film unit will be detached to the UK or Canada and film some of these scenes with a REAL Lanc, as well as some taxi take off scenes.

Pete

[Bradburger]

Well, I'm all for remakes if they are done properly, with a good cast and maybe just a tad more truthful than the originals were.

After all, they can add a new twist or spin over them.

I'm hoping Peter Jackson will keep the spirit of the original film (he says that's what he wants to do), but I also hope that they potray Guy Gibson like he really was, call the dog 'Nigger' (not 'Trigger' as has been suggested) and make it as historicaly accurate as possible with none of the Hollywood BS that can be seen in films such as Pearl Harbour.

I'm sure with a good cast and crew, it could be fantastic.

And CGI when done well can look very realistic, so lets not have any of that dodgy CGI were Lancasters do Star Wars style manouvers as the P40's & Zeros seemed to do Pearl Harbour!

Btw, why not hire this guy for the CGI:

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/

By far some of the best I've seen, and he probably has none of the fancy multi-million dollar stuff that Hollywood & the other top film studios use!

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Cheers

Paul

[bdk]

I'm hoping Peter Jackson will keep the spirit of the original film (he says that's what he wants to do), but I also hope that they potray Guy Gibson like he really was, call the dog 'Nigger' (not 'Trigger' as has been suggested) and make it as historicaly accurate as possible with none of the Hollywood BS that can be seen in films such as Pearl Harbour.

Not likely! The film will have to be "personalized" by the director, and like it or not, you will not see anything that is not politically correct on the screen. Why would they leave the money on the table? Why piss people off? It is a business.

And my personal pet peeve- there is no letter "U" in Pearl HARBOR! I don't go to the UK and change the spelling of all your cities...

[Bradburger]

And my personal pet peeve- there is no letter "U" in Pearl HARBOR! I don't go to the UK and change the spelling of all your cities...

Ah, but you do to some of our words!

Anyway, apologies for that mistake bdk - I must have been thinking of the actress!

(Above said with tounge firmly in cheek)

I agree about films being 'personalised' (note, no Z in it btw) by the director, but this obsession with Political Correctness and offending people is BS and the quicker we get rid of it, the better! If the use of the factually correct name of Gibson's dog was 'Nigger' (also the code word for the breaching of the first dam) then that should be what it is called in the film. Otherwise it's another example of the PC brigade distorting history.

If it pisses people off, then that's their problem - they don't have to watch it!

Sorry to rant on about the PC nonsense, but there is far too much of it and it really makes me sick.

I read an article about this in theTimes the other day, and Peter Jackson said that he wants to focus more on Barnes Wallis & the development of the Bomb which wasn't covered (and still subject to the Official Secrets Act) in the original.

As I said, fingers crossed that he gets it right!

Cheers

Paul

[bdk]

Sorry to rant on about the PC nonsense, but there is far too much of it and it really makes me sick. ...
As I said, fingers crossed that he gets it right!

I don't care for the PC stuff myself, but those are the realities in this day and age. And I agree, regardless of exactly what th focus of the movie is, get it right! You can have a history lesson and be entertained at the same time.

[Jerry O'Neill]

My biggest problem with CGI is the impossible camera angles. In your mind you KNOW its fake b/c there would be no way that you film a real airplane coming straight at the camera etc... Also most of the movements are not as you would see a real airplane on film, as CGI concentrates on extreme close ups and the action is way too fast.

My comments to those who create these CGI flying sequences would be to watch and study footage of real airplanes, then match your work to what you see on film. I want to be wow'ed and say "Now that looks real!"
.Pete

Pete;
You hit the other nail on the head!
In an effort to create somethning so unusal and "never done before" today's film makers try to come up with the most elaborate camera moves (in CGI) just because they CAN!
They think it's so ground breaking because before CGI, they would never have been able to do the camera moves that now, come with apparent ease. They are try to "out do", the last guy!
What they are actually doing is breaking is the viewers sense of how life really is and how things react in the real world, the reality we have learned over time to expect.
If they only tried to create the CGI scenes as though a real camera was being used and was bound by all the laws a physics that apply, then we might have something that truely becomes inseperable from what is real.

Take a good look at "King Kong" next time you get a chance. The ape's hair and facial movements are incredible, but when he jumps around and swings on trees like gymnist Kurt Thomas, it starts to show how unrealistic the CGI is. The CGI team has forgotten about the Mass and Momentum of physical objects as large as Kong, or let's say, at least as large as an elephant. Sure, an elephant can run at about 25 miles and hour, but he can't start from a standing stop and acclerate right to 25MPH when he does start to run. In addition, he can't slow down and stop to change direction that quickly. Kong has no mass. He snaps to and fro at the speed of a small cheetah. That is a physical impossiblity, and hence, breaks the illusion that what we are seeing is real. Moving things have to follow the laws of physics to be percieved as "real" in a CGI film world.

I could go on, but until someone really figures this CGI stuff out, it'll never replace actual , physical shoooting of a subject, be it an animal, or a Lancaster!
On my CGI soap box!
Jerry