The Mighty Eight... trailer

[crsutton]

Kinda of cheesy looking. I am starting to tire of CGI. I am really starting to tire of bad CGI. This stuff is pretty bad.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert

It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.

One story I wold love to see made into a decent film, or mini-series, is that of the coast watchers. No need to embellish drama there!

I think its aimed for a different audience? I get the impression this one is supposed to be a aired on cinemas? So it has to be more "flashy". [:)]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: obvert

One story I wold love to see made into a decent film, or mini-series, is that of the coast watchers. No need to embellish drama there!

Cary Grant's "Father Goose" doesn't do it for you? [:D]

I own the movie by the way and I will admit to owning "Operation Petticoat" too!

[SqzMyLemon]

They made the same poor CGI choices in "Flyboys" and it wrecked an otherwise decent movie showcasing WW1 fighters.

I could only stand about 5 mins of the CGI in "Red Tails" before turning to another channel. At least "Memphis Belle" kept it feeling real. I won't be watching this movie. CGI gives you such an opportunity to compensate for the lack of real props if done properly, but once again it seems to have been completely overdone to the point of being ridiculous. Give me good old TTT anytime for a sense of what it might have been like to see hundreds of enemy aircraft bearing down on you. Poor CGI is my biggest reason to not enjoy a movie, regardless of how good the story or acting may be.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

They made the same poor CGI choices in "Flyboys" and it wrecked an otherwise decent movie showcasing WW1 fighters.

I could only stand about 5 mins of the CGI in "Red Tails" before turning to another channel. At least "Memphis Belle" kept it feeling real. I won't be watching this movie. CGI gives you such an opportunity to compensate for the lack of real props if done properly, but once again it seems to have been completely overdone to the point of being ridiculous. Give me good old TTT anytime for a sense of what it might have been like to see hundreds of enemy aircraft bearing down on you. Poor CGI is my biggest reason to not enjoy a movie, regardless of how good the story or acting may be.

Yep, well said. You want to see a good movie? How about this one? They built the bridge, then found a train, ran it over the bridge and blew it all up.. No CGI here.

http://movieclips.com/pXkuw-the-bridge- ... ve-i-done/

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yep, well said. You want to see a good movie? How about this one? They built the bridge, then found a train, ran it over the bridge and blew it all up.. No CGI here.

http://movieclips.com/pXkuw-the-bridge- ... ve-i-done/

I wonder what that movie runs in 2013 dollars? They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made. There's no audience to support a $350 million war movie in theaters.

[Yaab]

After watching this trailer, I think B-17s in WITP:AE should have their maneuver ratings upped.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made.

Totally agree, but do a little research or get a technical advisor to reel these CGI guys in. The Command & Conquer massed air attacks just look awful, let alone the speed these aircraft are often shown maneuvering.

[SqzMyLemon]

Double post

[SqzMyLemon]

Triple post! Speaking of technical advisors, what the heck is up with a triple post?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made.

Totally agree, but do a little research or get a technical advisor to reel these CGI guys in. The Command & Conquer massed air attacks just look awful, let alone the speed these aircraft are often shown maneuvering.

We aren't the audience.

[Panjack]

I'm waiting for the Masters of the Air miniseries, now in development, by the same folks who made Band of Brothers and The Pacific. My understanding the focus will be on the 100th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Triple post! Speaking of technical advisors, what the heck is up with a triple post?

Check your index finger vibrations, bio-metric-field induced changes to the magnetosphere, and watch for sudden air humidity increases. Spammer.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yep, well said. You want to see a good movie? How about this one? They built the bridge, then found a train, ran it over the bridge and blew it all up.. No CGI here.

http://movieclips.com/pXkuw-the-bridge- ... ve-i-done/

I wonder what that movie runs in 2013 dollars? They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made. There's no audience to support a $350 million war movie in theaters.

Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.

So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made.

Totally agree, but do a little research or get a technical advisor to reel these CGI guys in. The Command & Conquer massed air attacks just look awful, let alone the speed these aircraft are often shown maneuvering.

We aren't the audience.

Saying 'we aren't the audience' is simplistic, and assumes 'the audience' (whoever they are) wouldn't and can't enjoy a film that is well made and makes some serious attempt at realism. That's simply not supportable based on evidence of past successes that did get things close, if not perfect. Saving Private Ryan isn't my favorite, but it's head and shoulders above this one, and it was a blockbuster. Look at the similar films to this, like Red Tails, and they didn't make a splash, and didn't make budget.


So 'the audience' is a bit more interested in quality film-making that it would seem by the amount of trash that still comes out of Hollywood.

[Bullwinkle58]

If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.[:)]

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)

Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.[:)]

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)

Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.

You miss the idea that to make it more realistic would actually make it more economically viable as well by cutting CGI/production time spent on effects that aren't necessary to telling the story. I site other films, and could site others, but there are really few that try to get it right, and generally the ones that have have been widely and popularly successful. That's the point.

I'm also not sure what your definition of a 'war movie' as people here would describe the genre. I'm one of the people here, ([:D]) and The Thin Red Line is my single favorite 'war movie' yet made.

TMTSNBN did just what you're talking about by going overseas and making triple what it made domestically, which had only barely covered original budget. Maybe Red Tails will do the same.

No idea what this new 8th film costs. Couldn't find numbers, but I bet it's about the same as Red Tails. Where does your 35million figure come from?

Your point about time is interesting, but in my comments I mentioned the mini-series as examples far above, talking about getting the realism closer to correct, (and they used some CGI too, just a bit more judiciously).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.

You miss the idea that to make it more realistic would actually make it more economically viable as well by cutting CGI/production time spent on effects that aren't necessary to telling the story. I site other films, and could site others, but there are really few that try to get it right, and generally the ones that have have been widely and popularly successful. That's the point.


If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.[:)]

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)


I'm also not sure what your definition of a 'war movie' as people here would describe the genre. I'm one of the people here, ([:D]) and The Thin Red Line is my single favorite 'war movie' yet made.

TMTSNBN did just what you're talking about by going overseas and making triple what it made domestically, which had only barely covered original budget. Maybe Red Tails will do the same.

No idea what this new 8th film costs. Couldn't find numbers, but I bet it's about the same as Red Tails. Where does your 35million figure come from?

Your point about time is interesting, but in my comments I mentioned the mini-series as examples far above, talking about getting the realism closer to correct, (and they used some CGI too, just a bit more judiciously).

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact ... box-office

makes some good points about "Red Tails" in particular. The movie didn't fail because it was realistic or not-realistic. It failed because it's a terrible movie.

My point about "realistic" is realism doesn't give the trailer shots needed to market to the US first-weekend theater market in 2013. I don't know how long you've been in the UK but movie marketing here has changed a lot in a decade, and a tremendous amount in the last five years. Massive budget, A-list movies like "Ender's Game" generally get one weekend to make the money. The up-front marketing is a blanket. TV, trailers, on-line, social media. Then one weekend, with numbers reported by Sunday evening on most major "news" outlets. (Why a non-investor cares which move "won" the weekend I have no idea, but it's news.) The next weekend there's a new new movie. Usually you'll see a third-weekend push on the first movie to get the crowd that waits for reviews and word-of-mouth and hates first weekend crows and then . . . that's it. DVD and overseas. Next player at bat. "Ender's Game had huge stars, hundreds of millions in marketing over several years, re-works, PR tours out the wazoo, and it stank up the joint its opening weekend. And now it's five-day-old fish. In that enviro if you can show 100 B-17s when reality says show 5, you show 100 and you play stirring, patriotic music in the trailer. Oh, and you "lie" that the thing is about history and not race so white folks won't be scared to go. It's just the reality of the industry now.

(Man, this line-wrap thing is making it almost impossible to post. The lione above is over 800 characters wide on my posting window.)

A "war movie" as I define it for the people here is "Tora, Tora, Tora." Facts, history, not much or any character development. "The Red Badge of Courage" is not a war movie. It's a human factors movie. A character study with a war as the backdrop and motivator for the character action. But you dont' learn about ACW campaigns reading, or watching, it.

[crsutton]

Just a friendly warning. Do a quadruple post and Matrix rolls your post count back to zero. I know, a bit harsh, but we can't have that sort of thing going on in the war room....[8D]

[GreyJoy]

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary [:-]

[Schanilec]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary [:-]

Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.[&o]