Why haven't they...

[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.

[macwilkin]

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

Yes, I am very much aware that Richard Todd played Gibson; my point was that The Dam Busters should not be remade!

T.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

From 1939 to December 1941 only those 3.5 million Britons and their other imperial allies such as Canada were involved in the war.

Those American films made during this period more often than not were concerned with life in occupied Europe-- Hollywood doing it's bit to convince the American public, which was largely isolationist, that there were good reasons to enter the war on the side of the French, Belgians, Dutch, Austrians, Norwegians, Danes, and yes, the British.

It (the war) didn't start when the US came in.

No, but it did end after the U.S. came in. (No doubt something to do with 16 million troops the US sent to fight in all theaters of the conflict.)

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.

I really think it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. I am sure many people in Britain were unhappy with the Mel Gibson film, The Patriot because of its portrayal of the British. Well, suprise, suprise, the picture made money in the UK, and did extremely well in -- India, where they may not exactly share your views regarding historical inaccuracy. I remember laughing my **** off listening to British film critics complaining that all of the main characters in the film Amadeus had American accents-- what did they expect? German accents? No, it was a case of British cinematic "chauvinism" because RADA-trained actors weren't cast in any of the principal roles.

Britain has a tiny film industry when compared to Hollywood. And Britain is pretty much unsurpassed when it comes to making "British" films. But, when it comes to making movies, Hollywood is the gold standard. Even if they sometimes take liberties with history.