'Red Tails'.....

[T3MP3ST]

Makes interesting reading ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16525977

[DanO1978]

I was reading about this movie on WIX the other day - Lucas admits that historical accuracy has not been his number one priority (the movie paints the Tuskeegee Airmen as having more success in combat, and being a far bigger influence on the war than was actually the case), and looking at the CGI drivel in the trailers, with Mustangs flying like Tie-fighters, I fear the worst from this film.

An extremely worthy tale, but one which should be told properly and accurately, something American cinema is increasingly less capable of doing it seems.

Given his repeated butchery of his Star Wars legacy, and input into "Indiana Jones and the Creatures from Planet Zog", perhaps it's Lucas himself that Hollywood is wary of these days, and not an actors skin colour?

[AlexC]

(the movie paints the Tuskeegee Airmen as having more success in combat, and being a far bigger influence on the war than was actually the case)

I suppose that's always going to be a touchy subject.

[Hatstand]

Is "Red Tails" just a remake of "The Tuskeegee Airmen"? As a film (ignoring whether it's historically accurate or not), that was a ripping yarn.

But I generally despise remakes, they usually rip out the movies soul... replace the original "proper" actors, with whatever bimbo's (be they male or female) happen to be big in Hollywood at the time... and slap in some "impressive" but unrealistic CGI. It's a rare event when I will watch a remake, I nearly always prefer the original. I refuse to pay good money for old rope. It's a rip-off. Bah. And don't get me started on sequels, prequels, spin-offs, derivatives, franchise-milkers.

There are exceptions though, maybe this will be one of them. Or maybe it's not a remake at all.

[Trevsy]

Given his repeated butchery of his Star Wars legacy, and input into "Indiana Jones and the Creatures from Planet Zog", perhaps it's Lucas himself that Hollywood is wary of these days, and not an actors skin colour?

Completely agree the man shouldn't be let near another film studio. Trey Parker and Matt Stone sum it up nicely. - "Well well, Indiana Jones. You're looking nice."

[DerekF]

The most recent trailer I've seen looks very impressive. I shall wait and see the finished film before passing judgement on the movie though.

[DanO1978]

George Lucas clearly reads UKAR http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a360691/george-lucas-retiring-from-filmmaking-wont-make-more-star-wars-films.html

Doesn't say much for Red Tails if Lucas is chucking in the towel before it's even released!

He's still threatening a fifth Indiana Jones movie. No doubt set in a galaxy far, far away.

[dazzagreenwood]

Well haven't been to see it yet (next weekend, all being well). And I've just found out on the internet that this movie also has a prequel, and a sequel planned http://www.s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/01/red-tails-sequels-ready-takeoff

[DanO1978]

US reviews have been mixed, at best. Apparently it's full of the old war film cliches, on top of the dreadful CGI.

Did see one amusing Tweet about the CGI: "This new Red Tails video game looks awesome"

[PeterR]

Shame there's no plans for a UK release...

[Mictheslik]

It's a shame as it was looking promising a couple of years back....wasn't the current scheme on the H11 P40 painted for this film?

.mic

[PeterR]

Yeah, I believed they filmed real flying shots, but opted for CGI instead

[PhilW]

It's a shame as it was looking promising a couple of years back....wasn't the current scheme on the H11 P40 painted for this film?

.mic

It was, and they've been hanging it out until the release of the film for any promo work required, before stripping it off.

[jon93]

Apparently it is to hit UK cinemas on the 6th June.

[DanO1978]

Apparently it is to hit UK cinemas on the 6th June.

Alternatively, load up Il-2 Sturmovik for more realistic aerial dogfighting...

[DerekF]

Have you seen "Red Tails" Dan?

[DanO1978]

Have you seen "Red Tails" Dan?

Examples of the aerial scenes are in the trailer.

[DerekF]

Have you seen "Red Tails" Dan?

Examples of the aerial scenes are in the trailer.

So "no" then.

[Finningley Boy]

I can't recall seeing any scenes from this film yet, but if it is as Dan says, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least, then I won't be making any effort to go and see it. CGI was meant to bring difficult to construct/re-construct scenes in films and bring them to life, it doesn't, its increasingly used to make cartoons out of everything. Pearl Harbour was along those lines, far too many swarms of Fighters in the frame. This film also attempted to protray the instance where a Black American Seaman took control of an Akak Gun and opened up on the Japs. Like the aircraft scenes, this was far more realistically depicted in "Tora Tora Tora". Pearl Harbour had Cuba Gooding Junior behaving like a Modern American Youth; screaming and whooping and way ta going! As if the individual (apologies for not recalling his name) portrayed would have behaved in any such way. There is also the point of misassigning credit and overstating unsympathetic character portrayals, nothing new to Hollywood, but always guaranteed to turn away any thoughtful audiences while wooing those who want to see a particular message broadcast and those who in this case, want to see what can be done with CGI imagery, however, unrealistic.

FB

[phreakf4]

.....CGI was meant to bring difficult to construct/re-construct scenes in films and bring them to life...

It was and is also used to allow the inclusion of scenes which would be either impossible (how many airworthy Bf-109Gs are there, for example or even airworthy B-17s or B-24s) or prohibitively costly, the latter probably being the more important consideration now. As to judging the quality of the film (or indeeed any film) I would much prefer to actually see it myself before forming an opinion.

It is noteworthy that "aviation" films, especially the more accurate examples, rarely do well at the box office, possibly because the general public is unlikely to be overly excited by the appearance of aircraft which are considered rare or "interesting" by enthusiasts and are more likely to enjoy what they consider to be "a good story". Historical accuracy or "correct" flight charactaristics rank very low on most cinema-goers' lists of "good things about a film".

[Finningley Boy]

.....CGI was meant to bring difficult to construct/re-construct scenes in films and bring them to life...

It was and is also used to allow the inclusion of scenes which would be either impossible (how many airworthy Bf-109Gs are there, for example or even airworthy B-17s or B-24s) or prohibitively costly, the latter probably being the more important consideration now. As to judging the quality of the film (or indeeed any film) I would much prefer to actually see it myself before forming an opinion.

It is noteworthy that "aviation" films, especially the more accurate examples, rarely do well at the box office, possibly because the general public is unlikely to be overly excited by the appearance of aircraft which are considered rare or "interesting" by enthusiasts and are more likely to enjoy what they consider to be "a good story". Historical accuracy or "correct" flight charactaristics rank very low on most cinema-goers' lists of "good things about a film".

Quite right phreakf4, lets stick to shear politically engineered escapism and childlike fantasy when entertaining the Proletariat at the flicks!

FB

[DamienB]

It is noteworthy that "aviation" films, especially the more accurate examples, rarely do well at the box office, possibly because the general public is unlikely to be overly excited by the appearance of aircraft which are considered rare or "interesting" by enthusiasts and are more likely to enjoy what they consider to be "a good story". Historical accuracy or "correct" flight charactaristics rank very low on most cinema-goers' lists of "good things about a film".

However, you often find if they cannot be bothered to make an aeroplane act like an aeroplane, then the rest of the film is utter bobbins too. It's usually a very good indicator that they care so little about the end product that script, actors and story are all up to the low standards set by the CGI.

[DamienB]

To follow up... having now seen it, it is utter bobbins. I can see why no distributor would touch it and Lucas had to pay to do it himself.

The dialogue is cringe worthy - right from the first scene it hammers the "white boys = careless glory hunters / black boys = bomber protecting supermen" angle and doesn't let up throughout the entire movie. At no point is an opportunity missed to substitute some moronic utterance instead of a more authentic or intelligent bit of dialogue.

CGI - is actually worse than I expected. None of the aircraft "fly" - they are positioned where the director thinks they should be regardless of the physics, and even ground shots with people just standing by an aeroplane more often than not use a poorly drawn CGI aeroplane rather than the real thing. You end up with caricatures of Mustangs where the nose is about the right scale to the people next to it but the rest of the aeroplane shrinks away with no regard to correct perspective. Every airfield is packed to the rafters with aeroplanes, right up to the edge of the runways. Dogfights do not range over miles of empty sky but manage to be as full of aeroplanes as a space battle in one of the risible Star Wars prequels.

Historical accuracy - well anybody who's read the '9 myths of the Tuskegee airmen' will find all of the usual suspects lined up neatly here, ignoring history in favour of keeping the Tuskegee myth going on. They were brave men who fought both racism and the enemy - there's no need to make stuff up to try and make them look like superheroes. However this is "Inspired by real events", so that's alright then.

Things I learned:

1. German 30mm cannons are so weedy that their shells just leave little smokey bits on plexiglass, and occasionally manage to shoot a tiny little hole in a pilot which then oozes a little trickle of blood
2. Machine guns on B-17s cause no damage to anything
3. Machine guns on P-40s and P-51s can make control towers, hangars and even warships explode in huge balls of flame
4. Oxygen masks are unnecessary even at high altitude
5. You open the bomb bay doors on the B-17 by adjusting no.2 engine's mixture control to the idle cut off position
6. If you break towards the aircraft you are in formation with, you will go underneath him rather than colliding
7. German anti-aircraft fire was completely ineffective, even against P-40s flying in a straight line for the tenth time over the same target
8. Judging by the sound track, Me-109s, P-40s and P-51s were all fitted with Lycoming engines

[Dragon Rapide]

The early posts here go back many weeks so presumably others have now seen the film. Their opinions would be interesting.

[Steve Atkin]

It was, and they've been hanging it out until the release of the film for any promo work required, before stripping it off.

Its actually been retained because we like it!