X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31
    Join Date
    15th January 09
    Location
    A wee bit south of West Point
    Posts
    1,590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    That makes you an audience of one... Hollywood, and by Hollywood I mean the entire film industry, is driven by numbers. And the PRIME NUMBER is the number of tickets sold. If a million people each bought a ticket for $10, that would represent a Box Office gross of ten million dollars. Of that ten million 50% is retained by the cinema owner. Of the $5 million left, a minimum of one million goes for prints of the film and advertising (and that's a tiny P&A budget). The distributor takes between 30-50% of the remaining $4 million, which leaves the studio $2 million. Now if the movie cost $5 million to produce (about one third of the average cost of a film) the studio loss is $3 million.

    Carl Stucke was head of the story department at Warner Brothers back in the 60's. On his desk were two signs. One said, "So many good books, so few good movies" and the other one said, "The bucks start here".
    Who are you kidding????? You would probably be sitting right there next to me.
    By Choice, not by Birth

  2. #32
    Join Date
    17th December 07
    Location
    Staunton, Va
    Posts
    4,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nope. I'd see it for free at a DGA screening!

  3. #33
    macwilkin is offline
    Retired Forum Moderator
    Forum Historian

    Join Date
    22nd June 04
    Posts
    9,938
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    25th August 06
    Location
    South Wales UK
    Posts
    10,884
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan R Porter View Post
    I humbly disagree.

    "Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.
    Nor was it about WW2 which was my original point.

    Quote Originally Posted by beloitpiper View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    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.
    [B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="1"]Reverend Earl Trefor the Sublunary of Kesslington under Ox, Venerable Lord Trefor the Unhyphenated of Much Bottom, Sir Trefor the Corpulent of Leighton in the Bucket, Viscount Mcclef the Portable of Kirkby Overblow.

    Cymru, Yr Alban, Iwerddon, Cernyw, Ynys Manau a Lydaw am byth! Yng Nghiltiau Ynghyd!
    (Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittany forever - united in the Kilts!)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

  5. #35
    macwilkin is offline
    Retired Forum Moderator
    Forum Historian

    Join Date
    22nd June 04
    Posts
    9,938
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    2nd April 09
    Location
    The Gulf South
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We've already got 'The Longest Day,' so why not?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    17th December 07
    Location
    Staunton, Va
    Posts
    4,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    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.)
    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    15th January 09
    Location
    A wee bit south of West Point
    Posts
    1,590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You left out a personal favorite of mine, "Cockleshell Heroes".
    By Choice, not by Birth

  9. #39
    Join Date
    25th August 06
    Location
    South Wales UK
    Posts
    10,884
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
    Yes, I am very much aware that Richard Todd played Gibson; my point was that The Dam Busters should not be remade!

    T.
    The charm of the black and white picture and some of the wonky (by today's standard) special effects.

    But with the quality acting and Eric Coats' stirring music who could want to remake it? The PC Brigade would rename Gibson's dog for a start.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    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. 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.) I really think it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
    Citing examples of these movies would be of interest. I have always understood that it was the broadcasts of Ed Murrow that had the greatest effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    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.
    Well Gibson can get away with things that many others cannot. He constructed an English villain full of ambition to be the "bad guy" and nobody likes a rotten apple. I look forward to a movie featuring Benedict Arnold.

    Simon Callow was RADA trained but he then had to do a silly American accent so he would sound more German. Only the Italian parts were allowed an actor with an English accent. However Americans like F. Murray Abraham managed a passable English accent (ah but he was playing an Italian wasn't he!)

    Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
    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.
    Yet Hollywood still likes to use British film studios to make some of them. It is, however, the exception to the rule when they do not "take liberties with history."
    [B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="1"]Reverend Earl Trefor the Sublunary of Kesslington under Ox, Venerable Lord Trefor the Unhyphenated of Much Bottom, Sir Trefor the Corpulent of Leighton in the Bucket, Viscount Mcclef the Portable of Kirkby Overblow.

    Cymru, Yr Alban, Iwerddon, Cernyw, Ynys Manau a Lydaw am byth! Yng Nghiltiau Ynghyd!
    (Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittany forever - united in the Kilts!)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

  10. #40
    Join Date
    17th December 07
    Location
    Staunton, Va
    Posts
    4,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    Citing examples of these movies would be of interest.
    Rather than recite dozens of films I'll give you just one example: The Great Dictator, released in 1940. This was Charlie Chaplin's first all talking picture and, although nominally a comedy, in it Chaplin departed from his usual slapstick to include satire and social commentary. In the film he plays the dual roles of a Jewish barber in the ghetto, as well as Adenoid Hynkel, dictator of Tomania. Hitler's entire entourage is brilliantly satirized, as is his chief ally, Mussolini-- in this instance "Benzino Napaloni", the dictator of Bacteria, as played by Jack Oakie. The satire and social commentary was not lost on American audiences, and for the first time since the war had began, grass-roots Americans began to be openly hostile toward Hitler and his regime.

    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    Well Gibson can get away with things that many others cannot. He constructed an English villain full of ambition to be the "bad guy" and nobody likes a rotten apple. I look forward to a movie featuring Benedict Arnold.
    Just as soon as I finish the musical version of Oswald Mosley and Lord Ha-Ha In Love I'll get right on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    Simon Callow was RADA trained but he then had to do a silly American accent so he would sound more German. Only the Italian parts were allowed an actor with an English accent. However Americans like F. Murray Abraham managed a passable English accent (ah but he was playing an Italian wasn't he!)
    That, Trefor, is called acting.

    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    Yet Hollywood still likes to use British film studios to make some of them.
    There are a couple of reasons for using British studios:
    1) The crews speak English, and work to an American standard.
    2) Because very few films are produced in the UK it is often easier to get studio space (ie: sound stages) in the UK than at home in Hollywood.
    3) Financing. Because the money comes from all over, it is sometimes necessary to give a film a certain "domestic" content in order to give investors a tax break. A film shot in the UK qualifies for all sorts of EU tax advantages because of its "EU content"; that is the percentage of the films budget in time or spend that takes place in the EU.

    Quote Originally Posted by McClef View Post
    It is, however, the exception to the rule when they do not "take liberties with history."
    It's called Dramatic License, and it goes back to the days of Shakespeare. You remember him. He was English, and he never took liberties with history. Did he?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0