Dambusters remake is on, says Peter Jackson

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 3,892

Just a moment of frustration that, without exception, EVERY discussion ( and there has been quite a few) about his film on this forum is derailed by utterly tedious references to a peripheral matter of no interest on a historic aircraft forum.
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

If I were Jackson and looked at this forum and saw how people who are supposed to be supportive of the film are complaining, I'd give up and go back to making elf films. At least then you wouldn't have a bunch of anoraks whining about peripheral nonsense.
Profile picture for user Meddle

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 1,613

This thread turned out exactly as predicted. Perhaps Peter Jackson was reticent about producing a film given that discussion about it invariably ends up with a gaggle of old men goading each other into typing "nigger" on the Internet? Perhaps he also realises that beyond the ingenuity, complexity and novelty of Barnes Wallis' bomb design,and the courage and precision of the pilots themselves, the dambusters raids weren't actually all that significant, tactically, in shaping the course of WW2? German industry was temporarily inconvenienced and a chunk of the civilian population were drowned in their beds. Hooray? I doubt Americans, or many people under 60, give a stuff!
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

Forget America, I think the new target audiences for action films (i.e. one not involving Judy Dench) is Asia. How many Chinese are going to care? If he wants to make money, have the RAF attack the Japanese rice patty dams. That will be box office! Then they'll eat the silly dog. That​​​​​​ will make everyone happy (except the RSPCA, but note, they didn't bob his tail before eating it).
Profile picture for user daveg4otu

Member for

11 years

Posts: 633

Political correctness gone mad! It isn't just the dog - but everything else - We must not rewrite history just because some people don't like the truth. The dog today ....denying the holocaust tomorrow? Where do you stop?

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 6,578

Amazing isn't it when the P/C brigade get all upset because of the name of a dog but seem to forget that bombers from all countries killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children.
Profile picture for user KurtB

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 161

Wow, much thread drift. Peter Jackson is making a film about 617 Sqns raid set in 1943. Shall we see how that film turns out?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 3,892

To the naysayers above, I would observe that to predict, before production has commenced, what will or will not prove to be a 'hit' is a tricky business, and even the industry gets it wrong most of the time. About 80 % percent of films are not great financial successes , but the industry is carried by the 20% blockbusters which make a packet ! Imagine selling the pitch for a film about an old King a lifetime ago, who had a bad stutter and had to go to a speech therapist. On the face of it, a total Art-House yawn-fest, yet the Kings Speech made over £80 million worldwide on a production budget of barely £10 million. Dambusters has it all, drama, jeopardy, action, heroics. Infact you could sell it as a historical version of Star Wars, which, as I recall, was actually quite popular !
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

I can imagine a few young people walking out of the theater saying "What a Star Wars ripoff...". : )

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 6,578

It's probably not going to be a huge cinematic success as in numbers going to see it BUT there will be a huge market for DVD's and after market stuff.Some films need to be made probably more as a personal project .You only have to look at the huge sell outs and effect when the Canadian Lancaster made it's way here.I hope the film is made ,i hope it is made well and will stand in time as a historic memorial to the brave people involved.
Profile picture for user RAFRochford

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 911

Well, I'm very pleased to hear that the project is back on track. I thought the same old yawn fest about the dog would have drifted past, but apparently not. Hence my tongue in cheek reference to all the other carp we've heard before. I'm just excited at the prospect of Peter Jackson taking on an aviation related film. It's surely going to be good?

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

I too hope that it's finally made. We need our heroes to be remembered, and this is one good way to do it. 100 percent historical accuracy is impossible to achieve, but I suspect Mr. Jackson will give it more than just lip service. And 99 percent of the people who do watch the movie won't know the difference anyway. So - bring on the popcorn!
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

Exactly. Why I even know if an old airplane film where they use the wrong marks, some have the wrong engines and incorrect paint. Despite those flaws, not to mention some special effects, script and acting issues, the enthusiasts still love it.
Profile picture for user QldSpitty

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,603

Same thing will happen with what happened after Saving Private Ryan,the rivet counters will jump out and try correct everything.
Profile picture for user daveg4otu

Member for

11 years

Posts: 633

Amazing ! If there was one place on the internet where I thought accuracy was considered all- important, that place was here........ but apparently inaccuracies are OK and PC editing acceptable by some here.

Member for

9 years 11 months

Posts: 1,203

"I'd give up and go back to making elf films. At least then you wouldn't have a bunch of anoraks whining about peripheral nonsense." Have you ever met a J.R.R. Tolkien enthusiast?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 3,892

Minor technical and historical inaccuracies are not a disappointment to nit-pickers and self-appointed experts. Quite the contrary, they are delightful nuggets to be leaped upon, relished, and are a means to impress anybody who is interested ( or not) with ones superior knowledge. Real howlers do detract from the credibility of a film and should be avoided, but it is naive and idealistic to suppose that film-makers could, or should expend huge resources of time and money, on details which will go unnoticed by almost all of the audience. After all, the film is a product, and the idea is to make a profit. In historic aviation especially, one simply has to be pragmatic, as seen in 1968 (Battle of Britain) when the ONLY way to have a fleet of German bombers and fighters is to use merlin-engined examples. All flying films inevitably have compromises on technical details, and it is only a certain kind of person who gets too distracted by it. So Dambusters will without doubt depart in some ways from recorded historic reality, but with strong characterisation and a compelling plot, there is great potential.
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

Tin Triangle... Yes, I knew some in secondary school. They were the only "bigger nerds" than myself. Yes, they'll be nerdy about Tolkien subjects, but at least we won't have to read about them here. Rather like the famous tree falling in a forest, if they complain on another forum, do they really make a noise? ​​​​​
Profile picture for user RAFRochford

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 911

Propstrike; Totally agree on the BoB movie Buchons and Casa 2.111s. I've never had an issue with this either. In fact, I still find it amazing that there was even a credible fleet of "Luftwaffe" fighters and bombers still available in 1968. That fact alone actually makes the movie quite special for me.

Member for

4 years 7 months

Posts: 119

I very much look forward to seeing this film but the dog thing could easily become the story as far as the grunting and pointing classes are concerned. Be easy to write the dog out completely, it's not as if it's a central character. And the codeword, it would be better to write that out of the screenplay too. I would hate to see the appearance of a squadron of Lancs on the big screen overshadowed in media coverage because of a bunch of pedantic throwbacks loudly announcing to all within earshot "Bloody PC, the dog's real name was N...) No reason to have the dog in the film, no need to have the codeword mentioned, just sidestep the whole thing and tell a human story.