War of the Worlds - Oh dear...

[Martin S-C]

On 27/11/2019 at 14:46, Phil Parker said:

 

On the other hand the "Hornby War of the Worlds" set would only be a paint job away.

I'll be buying popcorn to enjoy the sequel "Hornby's War of the Forums".

[Martin S-C]

On 30/11/2019 at 10:59, Torper said:

Buts that all too often the case nowadays - fashionable screenwriters deciding that they know a bit better than the original author and "adjusting" their dramas accordingly, subsequently to bask in high praise from the critics while the public turns off in droves.

 

DT

I think the issue is sales. Money. You know, that stuff that makes people greedy. The Beeb (and anyone else who finances TV productions) must make a profit, and that means selling the production to as many TV channels around the world who will take it. While the classic costume drama the BBC was famous for 20-40 years ago gives them comfy laurels to recline against I very much doubt any satellite/cable TV channel would today buy "I Claudius". Today you need to appeal to the masses more than ever which means any retelling of any classic story must be cream-coated and cherry-topped with relevant social/political/whatever themes. Who, in their right mind (*) wants to watch a bunch of actors in big dresses and Mr D'Arcy shirtlessness spouting Victorian values?

(*) sarcasm.

[Pacific231G]

On 04/12/2019 at 10:49, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Plain fact, it is a lot cheaper to film in Prague or Budapest than in Paris. And, yes, the authorities are more accommodating to film companies.

 

But, if they wanted to, there are still plenty of quiet corners of Paris that have changed remarkably little since the 1950s. Being almost as fussy about architectural style as I am about BR Mk1 carriages cropping up in the 1930s, I wish they would take more care about such details. Or simply take the Maigret stories and adapt them to 21st century French settings. The storylines are strong enough to do that.

 

Perhaps they should  build a big filmset somewhere and create a tourism venue with it. Build it in the right place (ex-coal or ex-steel) and they could probably get EU finance for it.

Interesting Jo.

Though I've never lived there, I know Paris quite well including explorations of less well known corners. More to the point, I knew it in in the 1970s when a lot more of it remained unmodernised and I totally believed the Budapest settings used in the Michael Gambon and Rowan Atkinson versions and the Prague settings used in the French Bruno Cremer Maigrets. In the latter case French viewers seem to have believed it too. The only problem was when a steam hauled train appeared and it and the railway it ran on were simply not French.

The problem with quiet corners is that much of the narrative takes place on busy streets and boulevards as well and I think that would be far harder to achieve in real Paris now. Similarly, if you were doing a story set in the financial heart of the City of London in the 1950s, where would you film it today? I'd wager not in London at all.

 

3 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Cost.
And the aforementioned fact that your average viewer doesn't know one steam loco from another, so the expense of getting the exact rolling stock correct is basically a complete waste of money.
Remember that TV series and film makers are telling stories, not writing accurate history books. The details don't matter, only the story does.

Indeed, all television production involves compromise and it's not just your average viewer whose enjoyment won't be spoiled. Even if you know where compromises have been made, if the overall impression is convincing enough,  you can still suspend your   disbelief.  I'm sure there are farmers who notice the wrong shape of a hay bale, electrical engineers who spot the wrong pattern of insulators on power lines and typographers who know that a particular variant of a typestyle was only published five years later, but most of us can skate over the odd detail like that even if we are aware of it. However, when either too many of the details just start feeling wrong or there's a really glaring error, then you stop accepting the story.

 

For most of the Gambon Maigrets I was quite happily in 1950s Paris even though I knew it had been filmed in Budapest but when a very Eastern European train appeared in one of them my illusion was totally shattered. That didn't happen when I saw Mk 1 coaches arrving at "Bletchley Station" in Enigma. I knew that's what they were but they still looked the part for a train in the early 1940s as indeed they do on heritage lines up and down the country.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Pacific231G

[James Harrison]

"Poor George. He did have such terrible typhus."  (BBC script writer:  'What do you mean the main character doesn't die in the book?  What?  What?  Cavor has a cold and in any case isn't in WotW?  Sorry, no, you'll have to speak up, can't hear you over the sound of striking the keyboard.....') 

[woodenhead]

18 minutes ago, James Harrison said:

"Poor George. He did have such terrible typhus."  (BBC script writer:  'What do you mean the main character doesn't die in the book?  What?  What?  Cavor has a cold and in any case isn't in WotW?  Sorry, no, you'll have to speak up, can't hear you over the sound of striking the keyboard.....') 

I don't think he was the main character, this version was from the female perspective and she was the main character.

[Mark Saunders]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I don't think he was the main character, this version was from the female perspective and she was the main character.

 

My thoughts were on seeing the first few minutes was it is Political Correctness mixed with Equal Opportunities !

 

I believe the minor earthquake was actually the late Mr Wells turning in his grave!

[Ian Morgan]

On 03/12/2019 at 14:07, Ian Morgan said:

 

The significance of the black guy (actual name Doris Miller) manning the AA gun during the attack at Pearl Harbour, is that, at that time, the US Military did not allow black servicemen to use guns. They could normally only work in the engine room or in the mess in the Navy. So when Miller took over firing an unmanned AA gun, and then went on to bring several injured sailors to safety, he rightly earned himself the Navy Cross.

 

 

The aforementioned actions of Doris Miller are now to be recognised as the US will name an aircraft carrier after him:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51168798

 

Still nothing to do with War of the Worlds, but still would make a better story than the BBC rehash discussed in this thread.

[caradoc]

I watched the first episode of the new series 'Cobra' the other night; Every time the camera cut to Robert Carlyle looking worried I couldn't help hearing 'The chances of anything coming from Mars....... etc' in my head (although here it was coming from the sun !).

[jonny777]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I can't read through 13 pages of thread right now. 

 

I have never seen The Crown, until now - when due to dire TV schedules I caved in to the wife's enthusiasm to start from series 1 episode 1. 

 

She takes these things very seriously, as if she is actually hearing the original script. She couldn't quite understand my outburst of laughter when King George VI travelled by train to Sandringham late in 1951. The royal train consisted of Evening Star hauling a few Mk1 coaches in maroon livery. Hence my unappreciated mockery. 

 

I am now frightened to see what turns up for the train carrying the coffin back to London.

 

 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

I am now frightened to see what turns up for the train carrying the coffin back to London.

 

Don't watch these things, but with any luck it should be some sort of GWR 4-6-0.  Hopefully NOT Hogwarts Hall, though having seen the results of the thought processes of TV producers, it'll be an Austerity.  Or they'll use "Evening Star" again as it had already been booked to take KG VI to Sandringham!

[brianusa]

Why are enthusiasts always critical of 'howlers' in film and TV?  They know most of the viewers don't know a King from a Castle and really don't care; its not important to the story line and if the film\TV company got it right, they wouldn't know the difference.  Only the 'enthusiast' would be satisfied but as there are a finite number of locos and rolling stock to choose from, it would be difficult indeed to match the train with the times.

     Brian.

[jonny777]

29 minutes ago, brianusa said:

Why are enthusiasts always critical of 'howlers' in film and TV?  

     Brian.

 

Because we think, if they got this so wrong - just how much else have they made errors with? 

 

For instance, it did not take me more than a few minutes to find the New York Times report from the day the new Queen Elizabeth touched down at the airport and they stated she emerged from the aircraft wearing a black hat, black coat and black shoes; but a bright green dress because at such short notice she had no official mourning clothes. 

 

On The Crown, she wears a full mourning outfit which was brought up the steps by a flunky and she changes into it on the aircraft. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by jonny777

[brianusa]

True.  But I'll warrant this didn't stop the fans from enjoying the programme either!

     Brian.

[rockershovel]

7 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

Because we think, if they got this so wrong - just how much else have they made errors with? 

 

For instance, it did not take me more than a few minutes to find the New York Times report from the day the new Queen Elizabeth touched down at the airport and they stated she emerged from the aircraft wearing a black hat, black coat and black shoes; but a bright green dress because at such short notice she had no official mourning clothes. 

 

On The Crown, she wears a full mourning outfit which was brought up the steps by a flunky and she changes into it on the aircraft. 

 

I’d say either was acceptable, because they convey the same message - of events moving very rapidly BUT, if she appears in the green dress then the newspaper report is needed for context, or the message is lost. The business with the mourning outfit is simple and self-explanatory. 

 

[jonny777]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I’d say either was acceptable, because they convey the same message - of events moving very rapidly BUT, if she appears in the green dress then the newspaper report is needed for context, or the message is lost. The business with the mourning outfit is simple and self-explanatory. 

 

 

I have to disagree. I believe that it would have led to a much better understanding of the innocence of those pre-technology times, and that even royalty are sometimes unprepared. Remember there were no instant news media outlets in those days. Most people would not know the Queen had returned until they listened to the radio news, or saw a b/w photo in the paper the following day. 

 

They could have shown an emotional scene on the flight home where Elizabeth is panicking about not having anything to wear, and being comforted by Philip who tells her that nobody will mind, as she is The Queen. Slowly they search through her luggage and find the most appropriate garments. 

 

To me that would have resonated with the viewer; as it would show that even royals go through the same emotions as we all do. 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

13 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

Because we think, if they got this so wrong - just how much else have they made errors with? 

 

For instance, it did not take me more than a few minutes to find the New York Times report from the day the new Queen Elizabeth touched down at the airport and they stated she emerged from the aircraft wearing a black hat, black coat and black shoes; but a bright green dress because at such short notice she had no official mourning clothes. 

 

On The Crown, she wears a full mourning outfit which was brought up the steps by a flunky and she changes into it on the aircraft. 

If you had to look it up to find the error then it probably wasn't one that affected the telling of the story. If the green dress was something generally well known then it might. 

All drama involves some suspension of disbelief and it's really a question of how much is acceptable before the audience stops believing.

 

I once had a production where there was unusual pressure to get every detail absolutely right to the point of pendantry, with the pedants having too much power with no responsibility for time or budget. It was a complete nightmare. 

 

It's not so much the individual error that matters, unless it's glaring, but the overall sense of time and place that the production conveys. Too many small anachronisms can add up to glaring error but the odd minor ones probably don't.

The catch of course is that some of the audience will have particular specialist knowledge whether it's the type of signals in a station or the harness on a hansom cab's horse. Sometimes of course getting it absolutely right will look wrong to the audience. When did you last see even a Victorian signal showing green for caution and white for clear even though those were the colours used in Britain until about 1890 (and a lot later elsewhere)

Of course though, if you're watching a drama or film and looking for errors then the production has lost you anyway. An error that jumps out at you while you're enjoying a production is another matter.  

 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Philou]

Yes but, no but .... went to see the recent release of De Gaulle, just before lockdown I might quickly add and in there it too had some howlers that I thought the producers would have had the nous to check before - an example - De Gaulle is seen in an aircraft hanger on his way to his first flight to meet with Churchill in June 1940, very nice aircraft all duly spruced up and the like, especially the DC3 in camouflage sporting its lovely black and white D-Day stripes. I'm not an aircraft spotter or enthusiast - but at least I knew THAT detail.

 

Other details jarred somewhat when in London, everything was clean and sparkling with the City of London cast iron bollards spruced and the coat of arms freshly painted - not a blackened polluted building anywhere, hardly any windows with tape on them .... travelling from Portsmouth to London by car on a steeply rising winding cliff top road ...... and so it went.

 

It didn't spoil the film as I learnt a lot of things about De Gaulle (if the historic context was correct) and I did enjoy it - one of those cases of 'should have tried harder'.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[rockershovel]

I’d be most interested to see the De Gaulle film; I suspect that the French, and British (and, indeed, American) views of him differ radically. 

 

 

 

 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

The best TV show for recreating the past seems to be post-2005 Doctor Who, which has done a decent stab at recreating all sorts of historical settings (Tesla's Wardencliffe tower and WW2 Paris in the recent series for example).  

[br2975]

Biggest pile of cr@p I've suffered in years - I could have better spent my time watching grass grow, or paint dry.

 

[F-UnitMad]

7 hours ago, jonny777 said:

They could have shown an emotional scene on the flight home where Elizabeth is panicking about not having anything to wear, and being comforted by Philip who tells her that nobody will mind, as she is The Queen. Slowly they search through her luggage and find the most appropriate garments. 

Surely the problem there is one scene that didn't happen (the 'flunky' bringing clothes to the plane) is replaced by another that was highly unlikely to have happened.

I can't imagine HM The Queen panicking about anything, & the only thing I can imagine HRH The Duke of Edinburgh consoling is a large glass of whiskey (other alcoholic spirits are available)

They may be human but at that level they've been trained or drilled to hide their emotions. It was said that the Queen showed more emotion in a speach about Windsor Castle when it suffered a big fire, than she did in her speach about the death of Princess Diana.

[rockershovel]

Who saw the Austerity Hunslet painted blue, labelled GWR and wearing a 6’ chimney extension on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, then? 

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I’d be most interested to see the De Gaulle film; I suspect that the French, and British (and, indeed, American) views of him differ radically.

 

De Gaulle wasn't universally popular even with the French, hence The Day of the Jackal !

 

[AY Mod]

On the perennial and largely unsolvable subject (that a!ways gives enthusiasts something to moan about) of railway accuracy in period films and drama it's pleasing to see an attempt from producers to get as close as they reasonably can. It's not perfect of course but Netflix's 'The English Game' has a good crack with some lovely shots of the Webb Coal Tank with L&Y 6-wheel and bogie coaches for Darwen in the 1880s. It's like Downton with football.

[Harlequin]

The suggestion, way back at the start of this thread, was that if they can make imaginary CGI aliens, why not correct CGI trains???