A new "Sink the Bismarck!" movie?

[Bgile]

I wish you the best of luck with your project, although I think most of us here would appreciate it more if you built your personal stories around actual occurrances instead of moving ships around.

[RF]

I agree with the last comment by Bgile, as fictitous side plots take out time from the main subject of the film.

[In Iron and Blood]

I try to keep an audience that is ignorant of the real facts entertained. Hollywood's movies are character driven, so I tried to place my character in the action where I can. I minimized the roll of the admirals and placed Norfolk in the Sheffield's place on the 26 of may. It has the added action of friendly fire and keeping the Norfolk on the Bismarck's tail. I know its a sin to mess with the facts, but if it creates interest in the subject then it is worth it. I alway look for input and hope I don't disappoint in creating a good story. The British character is an officer from the Hood. He is on board the Hood at the battle of Mers-el Kebir, then he is transfered to the Norfolk where he witness the Hood's destruction. He is affected by the loss of his old ship and the friends that went down on her. The British character hates the Germans (he would have let them all drown)and only after witnessing the Bismarck crew torment at the end. He feels compassion for the struggling crew and helps rescue Mullenheim-Rechberg.

Joe

[Karl Heidenreich]

As a film fan and being the brother of a film maker I had seen a lot of screenplays in my life. I believe there are at least 20-30 screenplays for each movie ever made (including 80% of movies that had never deserved being filmed) so, first of all: is it there any chance in the real world that this particular screenplay could be brought to the screen? Some studio or financial bureau is interested in it?

And why mess history? The good war movies such as Tora, Tora, Tora or Bridge Too Far didn´t change historical facts (in the latter only two characters were modified out of 35). But in the worst war movie ever, Pearl Harbor, we see how the writers made quite a mess.

Well...

[RF]

I try to keep an audience that is ignorant of the real facts entertained. Hollywood's movies are character driven, so I tried to place my character in the action where I can. I minimized the roll of the admirals and placed Norfolk in the Sheffield's place on the 26 of may. It has the added action of friendly fire and keeping the Norfolk on the Bismarck's tail. I know its a sin to mess with the facts, but if it creates interest in the subject then it is worth it. I alway look for input and hope I don't disappoint in creating a good story. The British character is an officer from the Hood. He is on board the Hood at the battle of Mers-el Kebir, then he is transfered to the Norfolk where he witness the Hood's destruction. He is affected by the loss of his old ship and the friends that went down on her. The British character hates the Germans (he would have let them all drown)and only after witnessing the Bismarck crew torment at the end. He feels compassion for the struggling crew and helps rescue Mullenheim-Rechberg.

Joe

So how do you get him from the Norfolk to the Dorsetshire?

Far better I think to focus on a senior officer (such as Lutjens, an anti-nazi who is killed at the end) or to feature on two characters, one on each side. The German side should be easy - only one ship to be concerned with - while Norfolk was the only ship involved from start to finish.

[RF]

And why mess history? The good war movies such as Tora, Tora, Tora or Bridge Too Far didn´t change historical facts (in the latter only two characters were modified out of 35).
Well...

One criticism of Tora, Tora, Tora I have was of the downplaying of the mini-sub attack that was to coincide with the air attack. Only the mini-sub destroyed by the USS Shaw was portrayed, in fact I believe five of these mini-subs were destroyed. Although they caused no damage to the Americans the mini-sub attack was a major part of the Japanese plan, as some officers (the type who believed in battleships and big guns and thought carriers were no good) expected them to achieve more damage than the air attack.
Another criticism is that the role of Tojo and the Japanese Army in pushing for war is not examined as sufficiently as it should have been. In fact Tojo is only featured in two short scenes. And the Emporer very conveniently doesn't feature at all.

Moving to A Bridge too Far the roles of Runstedt and SS commander Paul Grabner are incorrectly portrayed.

[Bgile]

USS Shaw didn't destroy any submarines at Pearl Harbor ... she was in drydock at the time and one of her magazines blew up causing quite a spectacular effect. I don't remember what destroyer it was, but it wasn't USS Shaw. Incidentally they recently found that midget sub and it had a nice round 5" shell hole at the base of it's little "sail".

I was stationed at Pearl Harbor when they made that movie ... it was really interesting having formations of "Japanese" planes flying overhead day after day while they filmed it. They really had quite a lot of them.

I don't think they intended to deal with the underlying economic and geopolitical reasons. I believe it was mainly an attempt to just depict the attack itself for the most part, and they seem to have done a fairly good job at that. As far as I know, the best movie made so far that attempts a realistic depiction.

[RF]

Sorry Bgile, I misidentified the destroyer, it was the USS Ward and not the USS Shaw.

[Fantor]

I hope if there is a new movie about the Bismarck that it be a good one, just like Das Boot, Down Fall or Stalingrad.

Made by the Germans and Britrish in a real historical way. Of course with a plot but a good one and not something like TITANIC.

Edgar

[Karl Heidenreich]

I don´t regard the Stalingrad movie as a very good one (I imagine we are talking about "Enemy at the Gates" with Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. The book "War of the Rats" is a much better account on this Vassily Saitsev´s business). On the other hand Titanic is not that bad (the love history is the main flaw; technically it was quite OK).
Talking awfull war movies then we have Pearl Harbor and one U-I don´t remember it´s number with Jon Bon Jovi and Harvey Keitel...

[Bgile]

Yes I thought Enemy at the Gates had a rather silly story line. For combat on the Russian front I recommend "Cross of Iron", but that's from the German point of view.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Yes I thought Enemy at the Gates had a rather silly story line. For combat on the Russian front I recommend "Cross of Iron", but that's from the German point of view.

I agree with your Enemy at the Gates opinion. About the Cross of Iron I read the book many years ago (my dog eat it with my Colege´s times Diferential Equation textbook ) and saw the movie some five years ago. Quite good but still there is no definitive dramatic movie still done for the eastern front.

The commies filmed a movie about Kursk´s battle that in Spanish was titles "La Gran Batalla". Impressive because they used a lot of T-34 and Tigers tanks that usually are not seen in western made movies. But it was not dramatic as we accept them but more like a documentary (of course of virtuous commies vs. filthy facists).

Best regards.

[Fantor]

I don´t regard the Stalingrad movie as a very good one (I imagine we are talking about "Enemy at the Gates" with Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. The book "War of the Rats" is a much better account on this Vassily Saitsev´s business). On the other hand Titanic is not that bad (the love history is the main flaw; technically it was quite OK).
Talking awfull war movies then we have Pearl Harbor and one U-I don´t remember it´s number with Jon Bon Jovi and Harvey Keitel...

NO, no, no, no, that movie "Enemy at the Gates" is one (if not the first one), of the worts movies I have ever seen. I was talking about the German movie STALINGRAD.

About the TITANIC, yes, technically it is good, what i am talking about is that horrible plot about the love story an so, just like Perl Harbor, what a bad movie it is.

The Bismarck really need a master piece in all sense: technically, historically, musically and alll the "ally" with good things.

Regards

Edgar

[RF]

Yes, and the angle taken will be crucial.

[Bgile]

I actually loved the Titanic movie in every way. The love story added a lot. It helped portray the majesty of the ship and the difference between classes on such ships. It was a wonderful story as well, and didn't take away from realism at all, unlike the stupid combat sequences in Pearl Harbor, for example. And the ending was classic, with the scene on the research vessel.

You wanted Hollywood to spend millions on a documentary? They didn't really have to make it so realistic, you know.