Tue May 23, 2006 3:21 pm
Hmm, a little research may go a long way. Maybe the moneymen saw it as a blockbuster, the makers didn't seem to. They wanted to tell a great story, and did.
The film has been on TV and released on video and DVD often enough to tell me the general public, in this country at least, are reasonably fond of it too, not just aircraft fans.
The film has been on TV and released on video and DVD often enough to tell me the general public, in this country at least, are reasonably fond of it too, not just aircraft fans.
Tue May 23, 2006 3:40 pm
Dave Homewood wrote:Steve,
I guess you must rate Tora, Tora, Tora much the same way then too?
Shade Ruff, as for "The Dirty Dozen", "Kelly's Heroes" and "von Ryan's Express", all I can say is OH DEAR GOD!!!!!!!!!
Tora Tora Tora: B- Not as good a story as In Harm's Way (B+), but still not a bad movie. I give Midway a B, and Pearl Harbor a D-
Tue May 23, 2006 3:52 pm
Dave Homewood wrote:Hmm, a little research may go a long way. Maybe the moneymen saw it as a blockbuster, the makers didn't seem to. They wanted to tell a great story, and did.
The film has been on TV and released on video and DVD often enough to tell me the general public, in this country at least, are reasonably fond of it too, not just aircraft fans.
That is what the makers said after the smoke cleared. There has been some rewriting of history there. Whether they told a great story is a matter of opinion; mine is that they didn't -- they took inherently gripping and suspenseful historical events and somehow managed to make them boring. With all their flaws, the book and TV series "Piece of Cake" were a better story and more thoughtful. Again, my opinion, not shared by many I realize.
The DVD is usually found in the bargain bin at Circuit city for about $5.00. That tells you something too.
August
Tue May 23, 2006 5:06 pm
k5083 wrote:The DVD is usually found in the bargain bin at Circuit city for about $5.00. That tells you something too.
August
Hey now. That's just simply not true. I paid $10 at Kroger's Grocery store for my copy.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Tue May 23, 2006 7:27 pm
Price has a lot to do with which version. The 'film only no extras' version should be in the bargain bin, as a result of the version with 'making of' music choices etc coming out.
As to quality? It's a typical 70s movie - a lot like A Bridge Too Far. Steve's original set of recommendations are a good choice for 'drama-docs' which I'd guess is why he chose them (and why they are different Shade Ruff's fiction films). I like Battle of Britain and a Bridge too Far, but as films, they are simply not strong enough. Film is always a poor medium for historical re-created documentary, IMHO. It was, of course better (as in more accurate and respecting the intelligence of the audience) than Pearl Harbor, but then so's Tales of the Golden Monkey.
K5083's point that Piece of Cake was better that Battle of Britain is one I'd share, but then so is Dark Blue World. However neither those two were telling the story of the Battle of Britain, so it's not an entirely fair comparison.
The importance of Battle of Britain is by being made it 'saved' a number of what were to become warbirds. It serves as a good drama-doc of the story of the Battle, but not without further reading (which goes for all such films).
I think Steve, like all good critics, has let a personal bad experience (whisper 'The Astra Cinema') bias him just a tad too.
Regards
As to quality? It's a typical 70s movie - a lot like A Bridge Too Far. Steve's original set of recommendations are a good choice for 'drama-docs' which I'd guess is why he chose them (and why they are different Shade Ruff's fiction films). I like Battle of Britain and a Bridge too Far, but as films, they are simply not strong enough. Film is always a poor medium for historical re-created documentary, IMHO. It was, of course better (as in more accurate and respecting the intelligence of the audience) than Pearl Harbor, but then so's Tales of the Golden Monkey.
K5083's point that Piece of Cake was better that Battle of Britain is one I'd share, but then so is Dark Blue World. However neither those two were telling the story of the Battle of Britain, so it's not an entirely fair comparison.
The importance of Battle of Britain is by being made it 'saved' a number of what were to become warbirds. It serves as a good drama-doc of the story of the Battle, but not without further reading (which goes for all such films).
I think Steve, like all good critics, has let a personal bad experience (whisper 'The Astra Cinema') bias him just a tad too.
Regards
Tue May 23, 2006 10:12 pm
I agree that both Dark Blue World and Piece of Cake are both better dramas than BoB. I enjoy the flying in Battle of Britain (especially the opening scenes with the Hurricanes), but feel that the story is just too weak. It lacks that personal touch that the other movies I mentioned bring to the big screen.
Tue May 23, 2006 10:43 pm
So all agreed time for a remake? Now who to direct? Well I'm drawn between Quentin Tarantino and Francis Ford Coppola.
Couldn't you just imagine Douglas Bader slipping down out of clouds in his Hurricane right behind an unsuspecting Jerry. And over the radio the german pilot hears "Say Hello To My Lil Friend" RATATATATATATATA......
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Couldn't you just imagine Douglas Bader slipping down out of clouds in his Hurricane right behind an unsuspecting Jerry. And over the radio the german pilot hears "Say Hello To My Lil Friend" RATATATATATATATA......
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Wed May 24, 2006 3:09 am
Some thoughts and responses...
Steve wrote:
I haven't seen In Harm's Way. Waht's that about? I also haven't seen Midway for many years, but co-incidentally bought it on the weekend on DVD so will have to watch it soon. Pearl Harbor gets a high rating with you, I'd give it an F
August wrote:
Perhaps that is as maybe, perhaps not. Mosely's book which was written at the same time as the film and was released the same year I believe (I cannot lay my fingers on my copy at the moment typically) doesn't seem to indicate any intention to make this more than a tribute to those who flew in the Battle and were otherwise involved. Sure, they hoped it'd do well, EVERY filmmaker hopes their movie will do well. I don't think it exactly bombed either, did it? They just didn't initially recoup the money expended, but when you consider its huge expense this is not a surprise. It has no doubt by now easily surpassed the profit line and is in the black, after 37 years of reruns on television channels around the world, video sales, home movie sales, rereleases in cinemas, previous DVD sales and now the excellent DVD pack with the extras.
Remember this, if they made enough copies so that some end up in the bargain bin for $5 or $10, they've done very well. The cheapskates will buy them after the more affluent market has been expended, and that $5 is still profit, when the DVD only costs cents or pence to produce.
Even Waterworld, slated as the biggest flop at the box office ever, has recouped all it's dough and is in the black on the books with aftermarket sales. That's how the industry works.
When I wrote great I meant in terms of size, ie huge, massive. They were not telling the story of one crew like Memphis Belle, or one squadron like Twelve O'Clock High or Piece of Cake. They were telling the story of the Battle, the whole story. It is the story of the Luftwaffe versus the RAF Fighter Command. The scope of this, all those men and women, fighters and bombers, over all those months, is simply mindboggling. How on earth, how on earth, can they tell the story of a battle, a huge whirling battle on which held teetered civilistation as the world knew it.
The film had to be somewhat disjointed, it had to cover a lot of characters. It had to bring in dozens of locations. It had to include the politics, the thoughts of those in the highest commands of the RAF, and also those lowly Sergeants and Pilot Officers who were saving the Allies from certain doom. It had to include the Luftwaffe, their high command, their politics, their aces, their side of the story. You could never, ever tell the story of an entire battle that was months long and full of ups and downs in any other way than what they did. And they did it SUPERBLY.
The writers wrestled for well over a year, just deciding how on earth to approach the film. It couldn't have been about one pilot and his experiences, or about one squadron in the battle because that doesn't tell he story of the battle, which was their aim. That type of storyline using the battle as a backdrop to core central characters was for other films to cover. The whole intention of this film was to tell the story, the true story, of the Battle of Britain. Not have it as the setting to some love story, or some personal crisis of leadership story like most war aviation films are based on.
Remember BoB had to show May to October 1940 within 3 hours!
I have never seen a single moment of BoB as boring. The closest thing that comes to boring is the arguments between Christopher Plummer and his bint. If it's a little dull to you, it is at least realistic, 90% of war is sitting around waiting for something to happen.
Personally I love the series Piece of Cake. It's brilliantly cast, written and produced. The characters are much more rich and interesting than BoB I admit, but once again BoB isn't about characters, it's about events. I hold both in equal regard as being among my favourites of DVD viewing.
Raven said:
This is quite correct, but I feel that the saving of the aircraft and Duxford is but a secondary importance in terms of benefits. The greatest thing the film did was exactly what its creator Ben Fisz did it for, to raise awareness about the Battle of Britain and the men and women who fought in it. When he first had the idea in the mid-late 1960's, the younger generation had little clue of what the hell had gone on in the battle which had ensured their freedom, and their rights to become longhaired hippy layabouts, etc. The film got the story of the battle out to this new generation, educated them, and made them want to know more. It was very important that the deeds were not forgotten, and had this film not been made, they may just have been. Just look at how many books on the BoB date from post-1969. Would they have been written had the film not made the memory of the battle popular?
I freely admit my own first introduction to hearing about the battle was by watching this film. After that I read more about it in books. The film has spawned other films too. Could they have made Piece of Cake, Dark Blue World, A Perfect Hero if this one had not broken the ground? Maybe not (especially as they sampled BoB footage).
You just have to watch 'The Battle For The Battle of Britain', Michael Caine's 'making of' doco, in which they went to the US Embassy in London and asked around in the street what people knew of the Battle of Britain. This was 1960's by the way. Most of them hadn't a clue. One arrogant horn-rimmed woman said "I don't know what it was but the Americans must have been involved." I'd love to have been there to slap some sense into her. This shows how the 'modern' generation of that era, and the foreigners who were not involved in the Battle, were in the dark about it. Since the film was made, most of the world knows exactly where, when and why it took place. that is what makes the film important. It changed people.
(I wonder as an aside, was this the first behind the cnes makign of doco in film? It was superbly done.)
Shay says:
No. You don't need to remake this film, it's perfect in what it does and set out to do. However, by all means we could do with more films set in the BoB about the people with linear narratives of their experiences or a squadron's history. Using the Battle as a backdrop to a film is fine so long as the film respects history. I have no problem even with the idea that Billy Fiske's life might be filmed, so long as they make it accurate and that smeghead Tom Cruise doesn't play him.
By the way, by definition Battle of Britain is most certainly a documentary, it falls squarely into the genre as do any films that dramatise historical events. Band of Brothers is also documentary. Great drama too. The sub genre of documentary in which they fall is called Drama Documentary. BoB is not and never was to be in the genre of action adventure/romance/lots of highly coloured explosions for the mindless masses like most war films these days. No, it has much more class than that.
Steve wrote:
Tora Tora Tora: B- Not as good a story as In Harm's Way (B+), but still not a bad movie. I give Midway a B, and Pearl Harbor a D-
I haven't seen In Harm's Way. Waht's that about? I also haven't seen Midway for many years, but co-incidentally bought it on the weekend on DVD so will have to watch it soon. Pearl Harbor gets a high rating with you, I'd give it an F
August wrote:
That is what the makers said after the smoke cleared. There has been some rewriting of history there.
Perhaps that is as maybe, perhaps not. Mosely's book which was written at the same time as the film and was released the same year I believe (I cannot lay my fingers on my copy at the moment typically) doesn't seem to indicate any intention to make this more than a tribute to those who flew in the Battle and were otherwise involved. Sure, they hoped it'd do well, EVERY filmmaker hopes their movie will do well. I don't think it exactly bombed either, did it? They just didn't initially recoup the money expended, but when you consider its huge expense this is not a surprise. It has no doubt by now easily surpassed the profit line and is in the black, after 37 years of reruns on television channels around the world, video sales, home movie sales, rereleases in cinemas, previous DVD sales and now the excellent DVD pack with the extras.
Remember this, if they made enough copies so that some end up in the bargain bin for $5 or $10, they've done very well. The cheapskates will buy them after the more affluent market has been expended, and that $5 is still profit, when the DVD only costs cents or pence to produce.
Even Waterworld, slated as the biggest flop at the box office ever, has recouped all it's dough and is in the black on the books with aftermarket sales. That's how the industry works.
Whether they told a great story is a matter of opinion; mine is that they didn't --
When I wrote great I meant in terms of size, ie huge, massive. They were not telling the story of one crew like Memphis Belle, or one squadron like Twelve O'Clock High or Piece of Cake. They were telling the story of the Battle, the whole story. It is the story of the Luftwaffe versus the RAF Fighter Command. The scope of this, all those men and women, fighters and bombers, over all those months, is simply mindboggling. How on earth, how on earth, can they tell the story of a battle, a huge whirling battle on which held teetered civilistation as the world knew it.
The film had to be somewhat disjointed, it had to cover a lot of characters. It had to bring in dozens of locations. It had to include the politics, the thoughts of those in the highest commands of the RAF, and also those lowly Sergeants and Pilot Officers who were saving the Allies from certain doom. It had to include the Luftwaffe, their high command, their politics, their aces, their side of the story. You could never, ever tell the story of an entire battle that was months long and full of ups and downs in any other way than what they did. And they did it SUPERBLY.
The writers wrestled for well over a year, just deciding how on earth to approach the film. It couldn't have been about one pilot and his experiences, or about one squadron in the battle because that doesn't tell he story of the battle, which was their aim. That type of storyline using the battle as a backdrop to core central characters was for other films to cover. The whole intention of this film was to tell the story, the true story, of the Battle of Britain. Not have it as the setting to some love story, or some personal crisis of leadership story like most war aviation films are based on.
Remember BoB had to show May to October 1940 within 3 hours!
they took inherently gripping and suspenseful historical events and somehow managed to make them boring.
I have never seen a single moment of BoB as boring. The closest thing that comes to boring is the arguments between Christopher Plummer and his bint. If it's a little dull to you, it is at least realistic, 90% of war is sitting around waiting for something to happen.
With all their flaws, the book and TV series "Piece of Cake" were a better story and more thoughtful. Again, my opinion, not shared by many I realize.
Personally I love the series Piece of Cake. It's brilliantly cast, written and produced. The characters are much more rich and interesting than BoB I admit, but once again BoB isn't about characters, it's about events. I hold both in equal regard as being among my favourites of DVD viewing.
Raven said:
The importance of Battle of Britain is by being made it 'saved' a number of what were to become warbirds. It serves as a good drama-doc of the story of the Battle, but not without further reading (which goes for all such films).
This is quite correct, but I feel that the saving of the aircraft and Duxford is but a secondary importance in terms of benefits. The greatest thing the film did was exactly what its creator Ben Fisz did it for, to raise awareness about the Battle of Britain and the men and women who fought in it. When he first had the idea in the mid-late 1960's, the younger generation had little clue of what the hell had gone on in the battle which had ensured their freedom, and their rights to become longhaired hippy layabouts, etc. The film got the story of the battle out to this new generation, educated them, and made them want to know more. It was very important that the deeds were not forgotten, and had this film not been made, they may just have been. Just look at how many books on the BoB date from post-1969. Would they have been written had the film not made the memory of the battle popular?
I freely admit my own first introduction to hearing about the battle was by watching this film. After that I read more about it in books. The film has spawned other films too. Could they have made Piece of Cake, Dark Blue World, A Perfect Hero if this one had not broken the ground? Maybe not (especially as they sampled BoB footage).
You just have to watch 'The Battle For The Battle of Britain', Michael Caine's 'making of' doco, in which they went to the US Embassy in London and asked around in the street what people knew of the Battle of Britain. This was 1960's by the way. Most of them hadn't a clue. One arrogant horn-rimmed woman said "I don't know what it was but the Americans must have been involved." I'd love to have been there to slap some sense into her. This shows how the 'modern' generation of that era, and the foreigners who were not involved in the Battle, were in the dark about it. Since the film was made, most of the world knows exactly where, when and why it took place. that is what makes the film important. It changed people.
(I wonder as an aside, was this the first behind the cnes makign of doco in film? It was superbly done.)
Shay says:
So all agreed time for a remake?
No. You don't need to remake this film, it's perfect in what it does and set out to do. However, by all means we could do with more films set in the BoB about the people with linear narratives of their experiences or a squadron's history. Using the Battle as a backdrop to a film is fine so long as the film respects history. I have no problem even with the idea that Billy Fiske's life might be filmed, so long as they make it accurate and that smeghead Tom Cruise doesn't play him.
By the way, by definition Battle of Britain is most certainly a documentary, it falls squarely into the genre as do any films that dramatise historical events. Band of Brothers is also documentary. Great drama too. The sub genre of documentary in which they fall is called Drama Documentary. BoB is not and never was to be in the genre of action adventure/romance/lots of highly coloured explosions for the mindless masses like most war films these days. No, it has much more class than that.
Wed May 24, 2006 5:52 am
Dave Homewood wrote:Some thoughts and responses...
Steve wrote:Tora Tora Tora: B- Not as good a story as In Harm's Way (B+), but still not a bad movie. I give Midway a B, and Pearl Harbor a D-
I haven't seen In Harm's Way. Waht's that about?
From Wikipedia:
In Harm's Way is a 1965 film starring John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, and Henry Fonda, produced and directed by Otto Preminger, and distributed by Paramount Pictures. The screenplay was written by Wendell Mayes based on the novel by James Bassett. It dramatically recounts the lives of some naval officers and their wives based out of Hawaii as World War II begins.
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
John Wayne stars as a Captain who is removed from command for "throwing away the book" when pursuing the enemy after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, but is later promoted to Admiral and given a crucial mission requiring the same sort of guts and gallantry. The role is one of Wayne's best non-Western parts. Though it makes use of the same heroic persona that Wayne displayed in his Westerns, this persona is very much restrained under Otto Preminger's direction. We learn more of the character's human qualities: his estrangement from his son, a junior officer in the navy (played by Brandon De Wilde), and his affair with a nurse (played by Patricia Neal) which brings out his yearning for a stable emotional anchor in his life. The Wayne-Neal relationship forms the emotional crux of the movie, and the two stars give sensitive performances.
There are sub-plots involving characters played by Kirk Douglas and Tom Tryon, who offer differing portraits of two naval officers associated with Wayne's command — the former a wayward sort because of an unhappy marriage and the latter a conventional type with a characteristic Navy wife (played by Paula Prentiss) who is ever solicitous and faithful.
The film presents an unglorified and realistic picture of the American Navy and its officers, and its sprawling narrative is typical of Preminger's cycle of works in which he examined institutions and the people who run them (such as the American Congress and the Presidency in Advise and Consent, the Catholic Church in The Cardinal, and the British Intelligence Service in The Human Factor).
The film was splendidly shot in black-and-white by Loyal Griggs, who composed his scenes in the scope format often using deep focus (Griggs was nominated for a Best Cinematographer Academy Award for his work). Jerry Goldsmith's score is also notable, as is the work of Saul Bass in the credit titles sequence (this sequence actually comes at the very end of the film, an interesting departure from the norm in a major Hollywood production at the time).
The film received extensive cooperation from the US Navy. This included the use of the USS St Paul in the role of the straw bottom cruiser the USS Swayback. And an accompanying destoryer that took on the role USS Cassidy. The climactic battle with the Japanese fleet was staged mostly with model ships.
Wed May 24, 2006 6:19 am
Dave Homewood wrote:
Shade Ruff, as for "The Dirty Dozen", "Kelly's Heroes" and "von Ryan's Express", all I can say is OH DEAR GOD!!!!!!!!!
The bait was taken...
Shade Ruff
Wed May 24, 2006 8:55 am
Dave, most of your points are fair ones. I question whether the sales of $10 DVDs 30 years later make any contribution to a film's bottom line when you factor in the time value of money (assuming an annual interest rate of 5%, a promise of $10.00 in 30 years from now is worth $2.31 today), but that's just a quibble and the movie industry certainly has its own "accounting" rules. However:
No. A documentary is where you point the camera at something real, not staged. The correct term for both BoBs is "docudrama" which is to say, a drama (fiction) based on real events. The wartime Memphis Belle was a documentary; the 1980s one was not. I have never heard the term "drama documentary" but if it exists, and I'll take your word that it does, it is an attempt to puff up fiction films into things that they are not.
August
Dave Homewood wrote:By the way, by definition Battle of Britain is most certainly a documentary, it falls squarely into the genre as do any films that dramatise historical events. Band of Brothers is also documentary. Great drama too. The sub genre of documentary in which they fall is called Drama Documentary.
No. A documentary is where you point the camera at something real, not staged. The correct term for both BoBs is "docudrama" which is to say, a drama (fiction) based on real events. The wartime Memphis Belle was a documentary; the 1980s one was not. I have never heard the term "drama documentary" but if it exists, and I'll take your word that it does, it is an attempt to puff up fiction films into things that they are not.
August
Wed May 24, 2006 9:10 am
Midway is one of those movies where the director says, "okay put some footage of a plane in this part." So then Joe technician digs into his box of well worn stock footage, holds some film up to the light and says "Yup, here's some footage of a plane here" and then inserts it into the film. Nevermind whether it's an American plane, a Japanese plane...or nevermind whether it has one engines or two engines for that matter (or four engines). Or nevermind that the same plane morphs into 3 different planes over the course of a scene. If it flys, it made it into the film.
Wed May 24, 2006 9:46 am
Some excellent points.
The size and difficulty of the story are a challenge, agreed, but it's an excuse to say it couldn't have been better scripted. A very interesting chat with MrsRaven gave me a fresh insight to the film, and scriptwise it needed to be tighter. If you take away a bias we share for aviation, BoB isn't as good as it needs to be, as Steve's said, as it fails to grip the audience.
I don't agree. That's how the industry works now, but certainly not then. It did OK at the box office, and a fair amount of tie-in guff cash, but the whole Video (1980s) and DVD (1990s) industry came way to late to attribute anything to the film's bottom line, although United Artists were probably happy. TV rights were and are small beans. The film team counted box office, and the books were closed when the rest happened.
It's a pity that we couldn't have used the marketing juggernaut that the Da Vinci Code has for the BoB film instead. Whatever it's failings, the BoB subject is a worthy tale, unlike the half-cooked conspiracy theory DVC is. There are films made today that the actual film is irrelevant. You WILL see it it or you'll be a social disaster, the tidal wabve of publicity, manipulated opinion, and advertorial data. It's a size beyone choice. There is no choice (First was probably Jurassic Park, then arguably Titanic).
I'd agree with Dave's sentiment, but k5083's detail - it's a 'docudrama', or 'dramatised documentary', but it's a fictional version of real events. Closer than most, and closer than some that claim to be documentaries.
Shades Ruff - Bad boy.
Regards.
The size and difficulty of the story are a challenge, agreed, but it's an excuse to say it couldn't have been better scripted. A very interesting chat with MrsRaven gave me a fresh insight to the film, and scriptwise it needed to be tighter. If you take away a bias we share for aviation, BoB isn't as good as it needs to be, as Steve's said, as it fails to grip the audience.
Dave Homewood wrote:Remember this, if they made enough copies so that some end up in the bargain bin for $5 or $10, they've done very well. The cheapskates will buy them after the more affluent market has been expended, and that $5 is still profit, when the DVD only costs cents or pence to produce.
Even Waterworld, slated as the biggest flop at the box office ever, has recouped all it's dough and is in the black on the books with aftermarket sales. That's how the industry works.
I don't agree. That's how the industry works now, but certainly not then. It did OK at the box office, and a fair amount of tie-in guff cash, but the whole Video (1980s) and DVD (1990s) industry came way to late to attribute anything to the film's bottom line, although United Artists were probably happy. TV rights were and are small beans. The film team counted box office, and the books were closed when the rest happened.
It's a pity that we couldn't have used the marketing juggernaut that the Da Vinci Code has for the BoB film instead. Whatever it's failings, the BoB subject is a worthy tale, unlike the half-cooked conspiracy theory DVC is. There are films made today that the actual film is irrelevant. You WILL see it it or you'll be a social disaster, the tidal wabve of publicity, manipulated opinion, and advertorial data. It's a size beyone choice. There is no choice (First was probably Jurassic Park, then arguably Titanic).
I'd agree with Dave's sentiment, but k5083's detail - it's a 'docudrama', or 'dramatised documentary', but it's a fictional version of real events. Closer than most, and closer than some that claim to be documentaries.
Shades Ruff - Bad boy.
Regards.
Wed May 24, 2006 9:52 am
Raven wrote:
Shades Ruff - Bad boy. :P
Regards.
Who me?
Shade Ruff
Wed May 24, 2006 1:21 pm
k5083 wrote:No. A documentary is where you point the camera at something real, not staged. The correct term for both BoBs is "docudrama" which is to say, a drama (fiction) based on real events. The wartime Memphis Belle was a documentary; the 1980s one was not. I have never heard the term "drama documentary" but if it exists, and I'll take your word that it does, it is an attempt to puff up fiction films into things that they are not.
August
In regards to the wartime "Memphis Belle", many shots in the film were staged and created to tell the story. Once the "Belle" had made 25 missions, and the film makers now had a focus, the re-shot many of the scenes, including the crew flying in the aircraft and the crew arriving at the aircraft prior to the mission.
Does it now become a "docu-drama". I'm not sure, but it wasn't accurate in many respects including the make-up of the crew. Co-pilot Jim Verinis had already been in command of his own B-17 when he was ordered back to fly in the "Belle" and "hit " the magic 25 as a whole crew.
Some people may hit me over the head on this, but I have it from the horses mouth, both from Jim Verinis and Bob Morgan.
Just food for thought.
Blue skies,
Jerry