Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There are a good few howlers in The Battle of Britain, the Stukas are obviously models, the Spitfires are a mixed bag of mainly later models and some blown up on the ground were obviously made of wood and canvas. My uncle who was in the RAF said the acting was "hammed up" but in some respects we dont know what reality was. Both Dowding and Goering were more eccentric in real life than they were portrayed. Overall as a movie it got most of the important points of the battle across, whereas the Spitfire sequence in "Dunkirk" was just nonsense.I watched the trailer for the 2019 film, Battle of Midway and was stunned with how poor the CGI sequences were. More like the "Battle of No Way!"
Compare that to the 1969 "Battle of Britain" with real aircraft. Simply no comparison. The Complete Battle of Britain is on Youtube. While the acting and script is at times mediocre, in my opinion the combat footage is second to none.
These CGI guys need to watch the BoB before they continue to put out this CGI Shite!
Jim
Yes, I agree. Whether they were later model spitfires or not the air scenes are far better than that CGI nonsense. You can tell the He.111 have Merlin engines, by the sound! It's nice to look at the real deal, even if some of the a/c we're look alikes.There are a good few howlers in The Battle of Britain, the Stukas are obviously models, the Spitfires are a mixed bag of mainly later models and some blown up on the ground were obviously made of wood and canvas. My uncle who was in the RAF said the acting was "hammed up" but in some respects we dont know what reality was. Both Dowding and Goering were more eccentric in real life than they were portrayed. Overall as a movie it got most of the important points of the battle across, whereas the Spitfire sequence in "Dunkirk" was just nonsense.
And some of the makeup on burn victims in the BoB was the actual victims - without makeup.I watched the trailer for the 2019 film, Battle of Midway and was stunned with how poor the CGI sequences were. More like the "Battle of No Way!"
Compare that to the 1969 "Battle of Britain" with real aircraft. Simply no comparison. The Complete Battle of Britain is on Youtube. While the acting and script is at times mediocre, in my opinion the combat footage is second to none.
These CGI guys need to watch the BoB before they continue to put out this CGI Shite!
Jim
They used what they had for the filming. Even if they were Casa 111s and Casa 109s it still beat some of the poor dog sh!t CGI that is used now.Yes, I agree. Whether they were later model spitfires or not the air scenes are far better than that CGI nonsense. You can tell the He.111 have Merlin engines, by the sound! It's nice to look at the real deal, even if some of the a/c we're look alikes.
At least they tried.They did a great job on those planes. Much more than my whiney, "know it all" much younger self would give them credit for.
If I recall correctly, they used North American Harvards. Dad in front on one after flying solo in the type.I've had conversations in the past regarding the Japanese aircraft in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! - the main complaint is that they're fakes.
I have to explain that first, the producers went to great length and expense to create the Japanese types and that secondly, the 30 or so Japanese aircraft airborne at any given time in the movie, are more than all the flyable surviving Japanese aircraft left in the world.
In other words, the world has not seen that many Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft in the air since the end of WWII.
And to add to that, those reproductions were about as accurate as one could get without building actual Japanese types.
ME ME ME ME!I always thought there was a business opportunity lost after "Tora". How many of us would have bought a fibreglass P-40 pulled from those molds and put it in the back yard?
So the film is good enough? Is on my to watch list (anytime I have time) but to watch an awful one...My criticism of Midway also has to do with CGI, but a totally different aspect of it. Having rendered a B-17 to land at Midway, why not show the them harassing the Japanese carriers? Why add more B-26's then where actually there? Was it not dramatic enough to have one crash dive on one of the carriers , or (unshown) having one of them fly down the flight deck of one? The point is they over used what they did render, and could have added to the quality of the movie by subtraction. There was heroism to go around, why not show the reality instead of saturating every action scene like a comic book?
It was a good first draft of a movie and could have been really something with a tweak here and there. Kudos to the addition of Nell bombers though. Now with the scope of a battle like Midway, I understand everything can't be added and they chose a very limited perspective to tell their story, but it could have been much better, though I admit to liking it.
Uhhh...but hey, I liked Pearl Harbor