Guy Gibsons Dog Renamed for Film

[DaveB]

Hi Mark

Yup.. the whole remake thing is a bit of a failure in my view too. I honestly can't recall any more than maybe 1 that's been worth the viewing time.. that being 'The 39 Steps' .. the one with Kenneth More not the later ( 2rd ) remake with that JC Superstar actor in the leading roll :o The first B&W version was good and still is.. the Ken More one was a little different but no worse. I'll probably end up watching the 'Dambusters' remake but only when it gets on the box ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[SkippyBing]

Although U-571 or whatever it was called was complete bunk as far as historical accuracy went, it was several orders of magnitude more entertaining than Enigma the more historically accurate British film that I have yet to be concious at the end of. Hollywood is about entertainment, not documentaries however that doesn't preclude them making an entertaining film based on historical fact. I'm just surprised at the number of people who're so close minded that they're slagging off a film that hasn't been made yet, I'm also slightly worried anyone expected Mission Impossible to accurately portray the Channel Tunnel rail link...

Interestingly the '39 Steps' remake that is closest to the book is the one with Robert Powell.

[Quixoticish]

EDIT..
Yeh.. thanks for that Chris. I'm only quoting what was said in the programme :roll:

It wasn't aimed at you personally Dave, sorry if it came off that way. I was referring more to the fact that the programme was going on about the situation you mentioned being an example of political correctness taken to extremes when it isn't anything to do with PC gone mad, not you personally.

[DaveB]

Ah.. rgr that Skip ;-)

I've never read the book (it's here somewhere and if not, up at my folks house) and have never felt the urge to I'm afraid. I liked Robert Donat as Hannay in the original film and likewise, Kenneth More in the second. I suppose I've never really been a big fan of Robert Powell (I remembered his name eventurally ) and this may have had an overwhelming effect on how I viewed his portrayal and the film in general.

I find that films rarely follow books to the letter and rarely live up to them and for many reasons. We all read things in different ways regardless of how the written word is penned and in telling/reading a story, our own imaginations make up the picture rather than have some director do it for us. Any film version is of course how HE see's the story in his head so even if it's a documentary, it'll differ from our 'read' version of events Blimey.. is this really Saturday afternoon??

Even the film 633Sqn (a book I read at school and a few times since) differs from the book.. especially the ending but there you go. This just goes to prove that nothing is sacred

Chris..
Rgr that ;-) They certainly were extremes as well weren't they :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[forthbridge]

Why are we all getting so wound up lads??

The 39 Steps (original version) was very different to the book, and the Forth Bridge doesn't appear in the story either, and there's some stuff in the book that would certainly not get incorporated into any movie today.........

Yes, Hollywood has made some excruciatingly bad films (as have we in the UK) - but to compare the Fantasy that is MI or the Lord of the Rings to anything else is a bit pointless...

Apollo 13 sticks out as a good depiction of what actually happened, so it has been done before - with some small changes - in my opinion countered by the commentary of Jim Lovell who is quick to point out any oddities (if you care to listen to it).

The point is, particularly with 'true' stories, what do you embellish or cut? Should the film follow the entire flight there and back in real time simply because it's part of what happened? DO we sit at the monitor for 11 hours on a transpacific flight in FS9?

My own opinion is that I'll 'wait and see' - Jackson is very keen to make the movie, and obviously has good reason for doing so - not, I would contend, purely to make cash. We may be pleasantly surprised. And if it turns out to be a stinker, what have we lost? Just get a copy of the Richard Todd version and fire up the speakers :flying:

[Paul K]

Its the CGI Lancasters whizzing round the flak towers like X-wing fighters thats really going to piss me off.

If you haven't seen it, this is worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMfBKrdErY :000:

Ah, forgotten about that. I thought the best bit was when Richard Todd heard Obiwan Kenobi telling him to use the force. The look on his face was just perfect !

Not forgetting the story how the Germans may see it :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVSBtivbUs4

And that too. Priceless!

[markw]

Although U-571 or whatever it was called was complete bunk as far as historical accuracy went, it was several orders of magnitude more entertaining than Enigma the more historically accurate British film that I have yet to be concious at the end of. Hollywood is about entertainment, not documentaries however that doesn't preclude them making an entertaining film based on historical fact. I'm just surprised at the number of people who're so close minded that they're slagging off a film that hasn't been made yet, I'm also slightly worried anyone expected Mission Impossible to accurately portray the Channel Tunnel rail link...

Interestingly the '39 Steps' remake that is closest to the book is the one with Robert Powell.

Unfortunately we live in a world where some people actually believe what they see in films especially where they are supposed to be based on real life situations. If Hollywood can make a factually accurate and entertaining film then I'm all for it, but I guarantee there will be some who watched U-571 and now believe the US cracked the Enigma code, and I'm sorry but I don't happen to think that is right. I'm not closed minded, my original post was more along the line of I can't understand why they are making another Dambusters movie when there are other stories to be told. Also whilst Hollywoood's lack of attention to detail isn't a problem when making fantasy and in those cases might be justifiable (although I still think trying to suggest you can fly a helicopter through the Channel Tunnel is just too stupid and spoils what would otherwise be an entertaining bit of hokum), this is a real life event, within living memory, and therefore should have accuracy and broadly be in line with events, and unfortunately I expect the catch all get out clause usually applied to such dramatisations of real events ("certain events may have been altered in sequence or changed for dramatic purposes") will be applied. I hope not, but I was expressing my opinion that my experience of Hollywood and real events isn't filling me with confidence. I also don't think it's a contest between entertainment and factual accuracy, it is possible to combine the two, but sometimes Hollywood prioritises entertainment to the detriment of factual accuracy. However, you are right, until we actually see the film we can't really comment, and I might be pleasantly surprised.

[SkippyBing]

Unfortunately we live in a world where some people actually believe what they see in films especially where they are supposed to be based on real life situations.

There're also a large number of people in this country who don't even know which century the second world war took place in, believing what's in films is the least of their problems.

[emfrat]

There is generally a good reason films are changed from the books they represent/are based on.

Quite right ! In LotR, there are several chapters which are purely literary devices, to provide the Hobbits with weapons (in the movie, Aragorn seems to have organised an SOE drop) or to let the travellers re-equip and restock their rations. There was no need to include them in the movie - but there was no point in changing Arwen's role either. I think Jackson's LotR was an opportunity lost; he could have done an excellent movie version of a fine book, but he chose not to and it is unlikely that such a budget will be available again. The movie is a grand entertainment, with many spectacular scenes, but is still a travesty of the book. :-(

As to 'The 39 Steps', even though the Kenneth More one was set in a more modern era than the book, at least it had a proper train in it, and Taina Elg! :tonqe:
Remember that ridiculous remake (c.1978) where the Flying Scotsman was represented by a Class 2 loco and three suburban carriages? I don't recall who directed it, but the assumption that any steam train would be OK because the public are too stupid to notice, once again brings the expression "arrogant B******" readily to mind.

And now, back to Jens' DH Albatross, to see if I can remake the beautiful landing I made at EGPH yesterday.

Cheers
MikeW

[Quixoticish]

There is generally a good reason films are changed from the books they represent/are based on.

Quite right ! In LotR, there are several chapters which are purely literary devices, to provide the Hobbits with weapons (in the movie, Aragorn seems to have organised an SOE drop) or to let the travellers re-equip and restock their rations. There was no need to include them in the movie - but there was no point in changing Arwen's role either. I think Jackson's LotR was an opportunity lost; he could have done an excellent movie version of a fine book, but he chose not to and it is unlikely that such a budget will be available again. The movie is a grand entertainment, with many spectacular scenes, but is still a travesty of the book. :-(

As to 'The 39 Steps', even though the Kenneth More one was set in a more modern era than the book, at least it had a proper train in it, and Taina Elg! :tonqe:
Remember that ridiculous remake (c.1978) where the Flying Scotsman was represented by a Class 2 loco and three suburban carriages? I don't recall who directed it, but the assumption that any steam train would be OK because the public are too stupid to notice, once again brings the expression "arrogant B******" readily to mind.

And now, back to Jens' DH Albatross, to see if I can remake the beautiful landing I made at EGPH yesterday.

Cheers
MikeW

I'd argue that the problem (narrative wise) wasn't with the films but with the source material, no matter how you look at it The Lord Of The Rings is anything but well written. But that's a discussion for another time and place.