DamBusters

[Wij]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/31/dambusters_remake/

The analysis of the possible Mel Gibson version made me snortle

 

[JBP|]

I'm sorry but you cant just redo the geatest british war movie of all time.

 

[Raven]

hollywood are running out of ideas, all they seem to be able to produce is sub standard action films, romantic "comedies" and shit remakes of old films

 

[Yaka]

might be good to see a brit war flick with juicy sfx, longs as yanks are not included in the cast

 

[JBP|]

Sir Ian Mckellen as "Barnes Wallis" and Jack Black as "Wing Commander Guy Gibson".

Also introducing Poppy as "******" (the black doggy)


I don't think its gonna work

 

[Yaka]

jack black?


wtfuke:

 

[ECA]

Samuel L Jackson as "Bomb Launcher #2"
Although he may want a purple warhead to drop on the germans helmets....

 

[Debaser]

I'm sorry but you cant just redo the geatest british war movie of all time.

They're re-making 'Ice-cold in Alex' too?

 

[Dreamor]

my guess is they will have American Pilots with American Planes flying in... and then after the 20 minute credits, giving Credit to the Brit's

Remind anyone of a certain Submarine movie?

I shant be watching it

 

[Cdr]

Don't be so quick to judge.

Peter Jackson is a huge war fan / plane buff - owning (I think) at least a couple WWI planes and maybe a couple of WWII ones.

He has a deep respect for the actions of the RAF during the war, and wants to create a historically correct, British story. He's already said it won't be Americanised, and will tell the complete story (much more than the 1954 film ever could - hell, the bomb details were still classified at that point).

Jackson hits turbulence over doggy name
04 September 2006
By TOM CARDY

Peter Jackson is already being dogged by one tricky aspect of the Dambusters story that he will turn into a $76 million film next year – a racial slur.

Wing Commander Guy Gibson, head of the British mission that destroyed German dams in World War II, had a dog called ******. The dog features in the 1951 book The Dam Busters and the 1954 film of the same name – both sources for Jackson's Dambusters to be shot in Wellington and Britain next year.

Jackson said his team would tread carefully over the name but had yet to decide what to do.

"It is not our intention to offend people. But really you are in a no-win, damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't scenario. If you change it, everyone's going to whinge and whine about political correctness. And if you don't change it, obviously you are offending a lot of people inadvertently.

"We haven't made any decisions about what we'll do. Everybody asks about the dog. Everybody who we spoke to over in England was, `What are you going to call the dog? What are you going to call the dog?' We will just wait and see."

Jackson unveiled plans on Thursday to produce the film. It will be directed by Kiwi first-timer Christian Rivers and backed by Hollywood studio Universal Pictures and Europe's largest film company, StudioCanal.

Jackson said the film would not judge what the Royal Air Force did. After special bouncing bombs launched by Lancaster bombers destroyed the dams, 1200 people died in the flooding.

"We don't want to make a film that is judging and moralising of the events from a 2006 perspective – that's the job of a documentary film-makers. It's just wrong to do that," he said.

"We want to make a movie that is reflecting the values that existed in 1943 and the pressures people were under.

"It has become trendy, especially in England, to cast moral judgments on (the Royal Air Force's) Bomber Command and the firebombing of German cities. I totally understand why.

"War is a horrible thing and a lot of terrible stuff happened. But that was a war that had to be won and the Nazis had to be defeated. I just think it's wrong to apply modern politics to something that happened 61 years ago."

Jackson said the film would not cost more than $US50 million – a modest budget by Hollywood standards. This meant more control.

"Everyone's fear is that it will be Americanised and made in an overt Hollywood way with love stories and such. We just want to tell the story of that particular event in the war in a straight way.

"We're not going up into that blockbuster budget range because then the freedom to do what we want to do would be much less. We want to make a film that feels like a British war movie, not a Hollywood war movie. It is really important to honour the feeling and the tone of the film."

Rivers said he wanted the film to feel as close to what it was really like in 1943.

"The story itself is exciting and what they did is exciting. We don't need to falsify anything or sensationalise anything, because it's all there already. What we want to do is make a film that's very true to the values of that era."

Personally, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Calaen]

agreed.

 

[DaGaffer]

This should be good, although everyone knows the British fought the whole of World War II in black and white, so if its in colour it just won't work

 

[Wij]

It may well be good. The Mel Gibson version would have been a fearful experience so thank jebuz that never happened

 

[Tom]

He has a lot of ground to make up after the diaorreah spouting nonsense that was King Kong.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

As long as he doesn't lose it in editing and produce a 4 hour behemoth of a movie i'll be content

 

[leggy]

He has a lot of ground to make up after the diaorreah spouting nonsense that was King Kong.

Couldn't agree more.

Drop kicking a dinosaur indeed.

 

[Debaser]

Yeah, the moment a 30ft gorilla drop-kicks a T-Rex really does test the suspension of belief, doesn’t it.

I liked King Kong, it’s a good movie. It is.

Anyway, apparently he’s producing this movie, though the director is someone he’s worked with for some time. I don’t know if that makes a difference to the King Kong haters. You Bastards.

 

[Yaka]

king kong was crap it was just plain boring and bloody long, i totaly regret not walking out side the entrance and playing on one of the arcade machines instead