Why haven't they...

[thanmuwa]

There have been a couple of attempts to make a film about "Mad Jack" (and "Mad Mitch" and the Argylls), but generally the studios shy away from glamorizing real war heroes. This is, partly, due to cost (a big budget war film these days will knock the spots off $150 million) and partly due to the fact that the motion picture industry is two or three generations removed from WWII. To your average 30-something studio executive WWII is about as remote as the War Between the States, and they just don't "get it".

Look for Fast and Furious 4 hitting the silver screen before we see a big bux war flick about "Mad Jack Churchill".

On the other hand, Saving Private Ryan wasn't made that long ago, and if they don't get WWII, how did anyone manage to convince the studios to make the likes of Braveheart, an era long before WWII? I am sure the right screenplay to the right director would soon have it as a film.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

On the other hand, Saving Private Ryan wasn't made that long ago, and if they don't get WWII, how did anyone manage to convince the studios to make the likes of Braveheart, an era long before WWII? I am sure the right screenplay to the right director would soon have it as a film.

Anything is possible in Hollywood, but in the scenario you've described who is going to play Mad Jack? Forget the script for a moment and concentrate on the lead actor. You need a Scot (or at least a Brit who can play a Scot) who can open a non-franchise move world wide. Right now there doesn't seem to be a British actor who has the box office draw of a Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise (and Cruise's WWII yawner Valkyre didn't exactly set box offices on fire).

And the Script. Mad Jack had a multi-decade career-- what are you going to focus on? What is the subplot? Where is Gweneth Paltrow in all of this?

Everyone can pick holes in Braveheart because to tell the story Randy Wallace played fast and loose with history. That the picture got made at all is down to Wallace's ability to get his script into the hands of the one guy who could afford to produce it-- actor, director, producer, Mel Gibson.

When it comes down to it, unless you have a franchise, like Fast and Furious or Star Trek studios don't like to take chances on pictures costing more than $100,000,000.00.

After all, they aren't the Federal Government.

[McClef]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

[Dan R Porter]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

And the recent WWII epic, Valkerie, though I have not seen it. I would hope they would not choose Mel Gibson for this particuler role, but they probalbly will. I would almost bet gibson has this on his desk, we have seen...

Braveheart,
Patriot,
we were soldiers
apocolypto
etc etc.

[macwilkin]

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

And the recent WWII epic, Valkerie, though I have not seen it. I would hope they would not choose Mel Gibson for this particuler role, but they probalbly will. I would almost bet gibson has this on his desk, we have seen...

Braveheart,
Patriot,
we were soldiers
apocolypto
etc etc.

Dan,

Trefor's point, as I understand it, was that Hollywood tends to have a very limited view of WWII. Witness the Errol Flynn move Objective, Burma!, which was on TCM this weekend. The film basically implies that it was the Americans alone who fought in Burma, and never mentions the British 14th Army under one of the Greatest Generals ever, Slim of Burma, that fought the Japanese yard by bloody yard. In fact, British troops rioted in India when the film was released there because of its inaccurate depiction of the Burma campaign.

Even in "SPR", there was no mention of the other Allied forces engaged on Normandy -- No Gold, Sword or Juno Beaches. Another recent example was the movie U-571 which basically claimed it was the Americans who broke the Enigma code, when it was the British who actually did.

As I tell my history classes, there were 26 Allied Nations that won the Second World War.

T.

[beloitpiper]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

To play the Devil's Advocate, Hollywood is a business, and their main audience in Americans. Most Americans want to see American triumph in WWII films. And look what happens when the Brits decide to make a WWII film--they make it about Russian snipers (Enemy at the Gates)!!

[macwilkin]

To play the Devil's Advocate, Hollywood is a business, and their main audience in Americans. Most Americans want to see American triumph in WWII films. And look what happens when the Brits decide to make a WWII film--they make it about Russian snipers (Enemy at the Gates)!!

Of course, you're forgetting the globalization of the movie industry...it's not just Americans who go to movies these days...or star in them, produce them, etc.

Ironically, at the Memorial Day service yesterday, the two other fellows in our colour guard and I were discussing Peter Jackson's plans to remake the story of Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC, The Dam Busters. It was our opinion that he should leave it to Richard Todd, a real WWII veteran.

T.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

To play the Devil's Advocate, Hollywood is a business, and their main audience in Americans. Most Americans want to see American triumph in WWII films. And look what happens when the Brits decide to make a WWII film--they make it about Russian snipers (Enemy at the Gates)!!

ENEMY AT THE GATES cost $68 million to produce. It grossed $96 million world wide, which means it netted about $30-40 million. In other words, the studio lost about $30 million on the picture.

Hollywood bean counters being the brave lads that they are, I rather doubt they'd toss money at a project that didn't feature a strong American hero. Hence Hollywood will make a film like Back To Bataan, but give Seven Graves To Cairo a pass.

While people in other countries may complain about Hollywood war movies always being about the Americans, when was the last time you saw a British war film that featured the Yanks in anything other than a sometimes uncomplimentary stereotype?

[macwilkin]

ENEMY AT THE GATES cost $68 million to produce. It grossed $96 million world wide, which means it netted about $30-40 million. In other words, the studio lost about $30 million on the picture.

Hollywood bean counters being the brave lads that they are, I rather doubt they'd toss money at a project that didn't feature a strong American hero. Hence Hollywood will make a film like Back To Bataan, but give Seven Graves To Cairo a pass.

While people in other countries may complain about Hollywood war movies always being about the Americans, when was the last time you saw a British war film that featured the Yanks in anything other than a sometimes uncomplimentary stereotype?

If only they'd release Ice Cold in Alex on DVD, but I'll settle for Guns at Batasi.

T.

[McClef]

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

Nor was it about WW2 which was my original point.

To play the Devil's Advocate, Hollywood is a business, and their main audience in Americans. Most Americans want to see American triumph in WWII films. And look what happens when the Brits decide to make a WWII film--they make it about Russian snipers (Enemy at the Gates)!!

Very Devil's advocate and clearly you have not seen the classic Brit movies made in the 40's and 50's such as In Which We Serve, The Cruel Sea, Ice Cold In Alex, The Stars Look Down, The Dam Busters, Sink The Bismark etc etc.. In the 60's they started to have to include Americans whether they were there or not.

Ironically, at the Memorial Day service yesterday, the two other fellows in our colour guard and I were discussing Peter Jackson's plans to remake the story of Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC, The Dam Busters. It was our opinion that he should leave it to Richard Todd, a real WWII veteran.

T.

Richard Todd played Guy Gibson in the original movie. Alas he is a little old to play him again.

That's because 16.5 million Americans served in the military during WWII, as opposed to 3.5 million Britons. In terms of sheer box office numbers (never mind defeating fascism in Europe and crushing Japanese Imperialism in the Far East) Hollywood perceives the American involvement in WW II to have greater audience interest.

From 1939 to December 1941 only those 3.5 million Britons and their other imperial allies such as Canada were involved in the war. It didn't start when the US came in. Hollywood has to remember that if a film is to be successful globally that inaccuracy will not go down as well overseas as it might do in the US.

One of the best dramatisations which was balanced and fair, even though the main characters were American, was the mini series based upon the novels of Herman Wouk The Winds Of War and War And Remembrance.