"The Blue Max"

27 May 2004, 08:30 PM

Just wondering how the members of the forum feel about the film, "The Blue Max"... Its always been one of my favorites. The book is also very good. What is the general consensus? "Prost"

Barrett · 28 May 2004, 09:04 AM

The Forum's literature on this subject is extensive. Vast, even.
Just search for "towel." B)

PeterL · 28 May 2004, 02:21 PM

Watched the DVD yesterday. Good movie. There are errors, but nothing that really matters or in the least bothers Joe Public, who wouldn't know an Uhlan from a bus conductor . It's not a documentary, nor does it claim to be "based on a true story". That they could come up with those great flying scenes without resort to CGI should be noted by some of todays tyros. The Blue Max and Tora Tora Tora get 11/10 for effort in my book. We shall never see the like again.

Barrett · 28 May 2004, 02:53 PM

Information: a search for "towel" turned up SEVEN PAGES of hits going back to late 2001. Origin of the topic certainly predates that, however.

TBM is indeed a subject of fascination....

28 May 2004, 04:39 PM

I have the "Blue Max" on video-cassette . About once a year, I take a look at it. Certainly the best W.W. 1 aviation film that I have seen. The fight scenes are terrific and the story is not bad either.
As for the towel scene, I keep thinking that if this film was made today, there would not be any necessity for towels. In other words we would see Ursulla in full "undress"!

Barker · 28 May 2004, 05:05 PM

What Pete said.

f___it.

fsbof · 28 May 2004, 07:43 PM

I agree with Peter - CGI is more economical for portraying an event at a scale that would be prohibitively expensive to do 1:1 (a good example is the opening battle in "Gladiator"). But I think it falls short (so far) at realistically depicting aircraft maneuvering under their own power, and against natural forces in the sky. Plus, I get more pleasure from an aviation movie knowing it's a real plane flying for the camera, rather than watching a digital one (on the other hand, seeing what Peter Jackson was able to do with LOTR, maybe the future holds some surprises). I saw TBM when it was released, and I loved it. I was only 14 or 15 and my knowledge of WWI aviation was pretty much based on Aurora's instruction sheets, but I was thoroughly entertained and impressed by the movie. Now, I recognize its faults as history, but hey - it's for ENTERTAINMENT. For its day, and even by today's standards, I think the flying scenes are superb and convey well the style of aerial combat in TGW (on the ground, it's Hollywood; the FF button is a great invention).

30 May 2004, 03:18 PM

RE: the CGI discussion. For a great example of what CGI can do for aerial combat, watch the WW II film Dark Blue World. Be sure and get the DVD that has the featurette showing where the CGI was used.

Honestly, I was astounded, I could have sworn they were all REAL Spitfires.

Cheers,
Scarlett

Barker · 30 May 2004, 03:53 PM

Forgot all about that - I agree - for anyone who is a little on the fence about CGI & aerial, it can be done well and that movie is good evidence.

Damn good movie too.

fsbof · 30 May 2004, 08:43 PM

I just saw Shrek 2 this weekend, and I must say there are some scenes where the characters' faces look absolutely REAL. A lot of that has to do with creating a realistically "lighted" image, but the effect was stunning. Each new CG-animated blockbuster that is released by Disney and/or Pixar seems to leap forward to the next higher level of sophistication and realism. I am sure that in a few years, it will be possible to generate aviation visuals that will make it easy to willingly suspend our disbelief.