MovieChat Forums > Battle of Britain (1969) Discussion > Attempted aircraft explosions with cheap...

Attempted aircraft explosions with cheap graphics?

posted 11 years ago by wmm575
16 replies | jump to latest

There were numerous scenes where collisions, midair collisions or crashes of downed planes were represented with rather cheap, primitive graphics. Just a painted on look of orange splash...and the plane had hit the ground and was gone. Now of course these priceless aircraft can't be destroyed for a movie, and there were few to go around, but this could have been handled with explosives and large scale models, as many of the on-the-ground explosions were. The same criticism goes here...the planes crashing or blowing up on the ground were such flimsy wood and plastic and wood models (no contents, just an outer skin) that it minimized the effect of what otherwise could have been a better movie. As unrealistic as those graphically created collsions were, so to were the clothing and hairdos of the women and men; the women exp, definitive 60s "beat generation" hairdos. When the details are unrealistic and anachroistic
a movie loses its credibility.

[–] Hotrodder 11 years ago

They did use large scale models and they used petrol filled condoms to simulate explosions in the models. It's also obvious that they animated some effects too and I agree they perhaps do look a little false today but in 1969 they could only do with what they had available. Much of it hadn't been attempted before.
The ones on the ground were full scale replicas rather than models as such. The Hurricanes really did have just wooden structures and doped linen fuselages so that is actually pretty much the way they would look when they exploded. Even a Spitfire was just thin aluminium over an inner structure so again they actually were rather flimsy in many ways.
No-one had really done an aviation movie which had the scope of BoB back then, even the radio controlled models were pretty experimental.
The hairdos are pretty lamentable but again such attention to period details was much rarer back then- look at Michael Caine and Stanley Baker in Zulu- no attempt was really made to make them look like the real life figures they were portraying- Chard had a full beard and Bromhead mutton chop whiskers.

Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!

[–] Etherdave 11 years ago

'Battle Of Britain' was state-of-the-art for its day, employed standard techniques of epic filmmaking, and remained a high-water mark for war film productions for years afterward. Portraying the chaos of a World War II aerial campaign was an herculean effort in 1968, and would still be atrociously expensive today. I suggest the original poster screen 'Angels One Five'(1952) to see a film badly compromised by unsatisfactory effects sequences and poor production values, and to understand the quantum leap in filmmaking technology of the last half-century, that can make even great films seem shabby or anachronistic by comparison.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] barjo4 10 years ago

Were they supposed to burn real planes? My only complaint - a small one - was that the real Spanish aircraft had British engines for which there was no other option.

[–] jim_burt 10 years ago

Today's kids have been spoiled rotten by CGI. Go make your own movies kid, then complain.

+1
For its time, they did a pretty credible job in most cases...

[–] The_Khazi 10 years ago

Some of the aircraft types just didn`t exist or weren`t airworthy during filming- even in 1969 -so the effects,particularly with the Stukas,were necessary and still look pretty good today.I think they used models for the attack on the Radar station and that`s not bad either.

[–] Squeeth2 10 years ago

When the Stuka crashes into the radar hut, you can see a faint line the model moves down but you have to concentrate. I thought that they did it rather well.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

I always wondered why there hasn't been a film made using a fraction of real size flying models of planes that can be shot up in mid air for real with real automatic weapons.

Something like make an HE 111 or an ME 109 the size of a piper cub & have a camera equipped 'chase plane' fly behind & shoot it to blazes with a light caliber machine gun.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Fugitive_Bill 10 years ago

Nick,

Your correct R/C models have advanced amazingly in the last 5 years, including the R/C pilots, but I think the 'movie makers' would still use phony CGI.

It's a shame - It's like comparing Star Wars IV (models) to Star Wars I (CGI)
I prefer to believe those SW prequels never happened.

I dunno what I'm trying to say, maybe that I prefer models over CGI anyday.

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

but would the 'laws of the air' & the safety issues allow you to shoot down your own 'drone'?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Hotrodder 10 years ago

It sounds daft but to me models look more real. I suspect the eye still sees them as "real" three dimensional objects rather than what is still flat 2 dimensional CGI no matter how high the quality.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] gmansi 9 years ago

Nick,

Your correct R/C models have advanced amazingly in the last 5 years, including the R/C pilots, but I think the 'movie makers' would still use phony CGI.

It's a shame - It's like comparing Star Wars IV (models) to Star Wars I (CGI)
I prefer to believe those SW prequels never happened.

I dunno what I'm trying to say, maybe that I prefer models over CGI anyday.

Great answer!

[–] Strangerhand 10 years ago

Well at least it's original and not yet another lazy, lame-assed remake. When are you ever gonna make something original and GOOD!? ???

All you do is complain about the work of others, and then turn out almost nothing but bull*beep* inferior, second-rate remakes! What don't you shutup, as you don't know much about movies nor VFX either. Dunno why your mommy & daddy doesn't kick your behind all around your tenement-flat!

I'm tired of you already! *ploink!*

[–] Lava-Rocks 8 years ago

As several have said already, it was state-of-the-art for 1969.
The script was well done and the characters knew their parts.
The plot was a given, and this was the first BoB epic, and the best yet.
Dark Blue World was equally heroic.
Both demand a full box of Kleenex, when you remember that this was a real battle.
Thousands died for our freedom. We ow it to them to keep the faith.

[–] slender4 8 years ago

I caught it too when first seeing Battle of Britain in 1969 when I was age 13. I decided to suspend any minor tendency for disbelief going forward. Today, 47 years-on I watch Battle of Britain whenever it is presented on TV, I own the Blu Ray and am, right at this moment in time, recording it to my DVR while watching it over the top of my computer. This film's a classic which has only gotten better with age; the explosions mentioned, I just go with the flow of this great film.

[–] liscarkat-2 8 years ago

Yes, there were a few unconvincing painted-on explosions. However, there were also scores of real aircraft taking off and landing, flying in formation, and dog-fighting. If it were made today, that would mostly be CGI that would look like a video game. I'll take the trade-off any time.